1992-04-21
--
(J,IEENSIIJRY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 21ST, 1992
INDEX
Subdivision No. 9-86
FINAL STAGE
Queensbury Forest, Phase III
1.
Site Plan No. 15-92
Queensbury United Methodist Church
11.
Subdivision No. 4-83
Southern Exposure
15.
Subdivision No. 3-1992
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Azure Park
27.
Subdivision No. 13-86
PRELIMINARY/FINAL STAGE
Herald Square, Phase II
34.
Site Plan No. 5-92
Richard Schermerhorn, Jr.
46.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL
APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
~
'\
/
--
--
~EENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 21ST, 1992
7:03 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES MARTIN, CHAIRMAN
CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY
TIMOTHY BREWER
PETER CARTIER
EDWARD LAPOINT
JAMES LAURICELLA
CORINNE TARANA
TOiN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK
TOiN ENGlNEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH
SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
February 27, 1992: NONE
March 17, 1992: NONE
March 19, 1992: NONE
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE ..IlliTES AS WRITTEN OF FEBRUARY 27TH, MARCH 17TH, AND MARCH 19, 1992, Introduced
by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Car01 Pu1ver:
Du1y adopted this 21st day of Apri1, 1992, by the f0110wing vote:
AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pu1ver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Laurice11a, Mr. Martin
NOES: NONE
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 9-86 FINAL STAGE TYPE I SR-lA QUEENSIIJRY FOREST, PHASE III CllNER: THOMAS J. FARONE
PEGGY ANN ROAD SUBDIVISIOI OF lAND lITO 36 SINGLE FAMILY RESIIEITIAL LOTS. TAX IMP NO. 121-4-1 LOT
SIZE: 24.76 ACRES SECTION SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:04 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior P1anner, Subdiv. # 9-86, Thomas J. Farone, March 31, 1992, Meeting Date:
Apri1 21, 1992 "The app1icant has modified Phase III of this deve10pment at the request of the Town.
These two modifications are: a change from the dup1ex concept to sing1e fami1y residentia1 made at
the request of the P1anning Board and, a change in the drainage concept from detention basins to
infi1tration devices at the request of the Highway Superintendent. These changes have improved the
deve10pment from the Towns perspective. The app1 icant was ab1e to get another 10t where a detention
pond wou1d have been. This brings the tota1 number of 10ts in this phase to 36. The submission has
to be reviewed under the subdivision regu1ations passed in 1982. Pre1iminary approva1 was granted
on 4/21/87. The SEQRA was comp1eted at the Pre1iminary stage of review. The Town Engineer wi11 identify
if the drainage concept change significant1y effects the previous negative dec1aration. The staff
be1ieves that a11 outstanding planning issues have been addressed and that the applicant has
conscientiously pursued addressing the Towns concerns. If all engineering issues are satisfactori1y
addressed, the staff recommends fina1 approva1 be granted."
"
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, Apri1 20, 1992 "We have reviewed the project
on the basis of the 1982 subdivision regulations and have the following engineering comments: 1.
The minimum center1ine radius of curves on Scoon Creek Lane should be 300 feet. 2. Whether temporary
or permanent, the dead end of Ferris Drive should be provided with a cu1-de-sac turnaround complying
with Artic1e IV Section 3.C.6. 3. The subdivision plat should indicate monuments to be set, along
with the coordinate values and elevations of the top of each monument per Artic1e IV Section 3.B.4.
1
"-'
---
)
4. The road profiles should indicate proposed centerline gr<1des along with water and storm drain
profiles to demonstrate that buried piping does not conflict. 5. The plans should clearly indicate
the disposition of the Walton Court stormwater recharge basin and inlet pipe. Proposed grading should
be shown. 6. The Planning Board should consider a recommendation for the Town Board to abandon the
easement for the Walton Court stormwater recharge basin. 7. The drywell detail should indicate the
use of a footing for proper support beneath paved areas. 8. Square or rectangular frames and grates
should be used for drywells located in the wing swales to obtain proper function in the flow line.
This will promote runoff interception. 9. The typical detail for the concrete sanitary manhole should
be labeled as storm drain manhole. 10. The drywell and storm drain trench details should indicate
the stone fill enveloped with geotextile fabric. Tar paper is not suitable. 11. An appropriate erosion
protection apron with grading details should be provided at the outlet of the 15" storm drain relief
pipe between lots 9 and 10. 12. Current field topography should be provided between the storm drain
relief pipe outfall and the existing stormwater retention area in Queens Victoria Grant to verify safe
conveyance of stormwater overflows through off site areas. 13. A fire hydrant should be installed
at the dead end of Ferris Lane for flushing purposes. 14. Percolation test data should be provided
for subsurface sewage disposal design. A 1-5 minute percolation rate was assumed for sewage disposal
design. However, the percolation tests conducted for the stormwater management design indicated a
rate of 30 seconds. Soils with a percolation rate of less than 1 minute will require a modified fill
for construction of sewage disposal absorption trenches."
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Do we have someone here for the applicant?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Martin Auffredou. I'm an Associate of
the law firm of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart, and Rhodes, in Glens Falls. I'm here on behalf of the
applicant, Thomas J. Farone, who's here on my right. Also here this evening is Nick Scartelli from
the Morris Engineering firm, and Mr. Leon Steves from the surveying firm of VanDusen and Steves. I
guess I'd start off by saying that this, as all of you know, has been a very long application, very
protracted, and for some of you, as I read some of the minutes from way back 1986 and 87, if you were
on the Board, you were very familiar with the phasing that went on at that time, for Phase I, Phase
II, and Phase III. We're here tonight to discuss Phase III of the Queensbury Forest subdivision off
of Peggy Ann Road, and as I see it, we are proceeding under the old law, the old subdivision regulations,
and really the only issue that is left, from the comments that you've heard tonight, from Staff and
Engineering, are some technical engineering concerns. We've made some modifications to Phase III as
a result of some concerns raised by Paul Naylor. We are no longer proposing retention basins in Phase
III. Rather we're now going to use some sophisticated infiltration devices for the stormwater runoff.
The subdivision Phase III, at one point, called for duplexes, as Mrs. York pointed out. It is now
going down from 52 units down to 36, all together, 36 single family lots. So, we're decreasing the
density with the Phase III. I think, really, the decision is yours, as to how we should proceed tonight.
We are prepared to proceed. Mr. Scartelli has addressed some of the concerns raised by your engineer.
I suppose one of the things that could be done is that this could be tabled for a week and we could
address all the concerns and return to you. However, we feel that we I ve done just about everything
possible to accommodate your concerns. We had a meeting, back in late March. Mrs. York and Mr.
Yarmowich were present, Mr. Naylor was present. We were all there. At that point, it was agreed that
Nick Scartelli would prepare some revised engineering plans which he did and submitted in early April,
April 3rd, I believe. We thought everything was fine and dandy, and then Monday afternoon came around
and Nick received a letter from the engineer raising some concerns, and that's fine. We want to
cooperate, and we want to do everything we can to get approval, but what we're suggesting is that if
there's a possibility that we can get approval tonight, we're all here, we'd like to get it done.
If there are some technical issues or concerns, that can be worked out between Mr. Scartelli and Mr.
Yarmowich subsequent to this meeting and perhaps that's the way to approach it. That's my pitch.
MR. MARTIN-All right. I guess my question would be, Tom, then, what changed between April 3rd and
April 20th, that there were still some questions left unanswered or, what was the course of events
in that?
MR. YARMOWICH- The meeting that was held in March to address the stormwater management concept was
productive from the Town's standpoint. The Walton Road stormwater management basin is intended to
be eliminated under this plan, which everyone agreed to be a positive modification. The changes in
the plan between then and now, I can't tell you exactly, because we didn't do detailed review at the
time we saw that. Actually, we didn't see the stuff until it was forwarded to us during this agenda
review period. I don't know that changes were, in fact, made. I do concur that many of the comments
here are of a minor technical nature. They're construction details. I think it may be important for
this Board to realize that my comments regarding the radius of curves on the roads on the cul-de-sac,
and monuments and so forth, are advisory to this Board, realizing that the plan had gone through a
Preliminary approval. This Board is going to have to make the final approval, and I wanted it brought
to your attention that, on a strictly technical basis, comparing this plan with those 1982 Subdivision
Regulations, there were some discrepancies. As far as the issue of the stormwater management concepts
changing previous SEQRA determinations, it doesn't. The same general method and level of control is
maintained. I think that issue can be put to rest, as far as I'm concerned.
MR. LAPOINT-Can we just quickly go through your comments? Number One, what's the actual curvature
shown there, do you know?
2
----
--
N I C K SCARTE LLI
MR. SCARTELLI-It's about 250 foot.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, 250 foot versus a 300 that would have been required?
MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Can you address Number Two, the dead end of Ferris Drive?
MR. SCARTELLI-The dead end of Ferris Drive was an issue that was covered at the meeting with Mr. Naylor,
and he had agreed that a hammer head would be sufficient.
MR. LAPOINT-Does it have the dimensional requirements we're looking for?
MR. YARMOWICH-There's no real detail given as to the configuration of that roadway. I believe, in
this case, as it has in others, this Board, in making any approval, can waive certain Subdivision
Regulations if they see fit. As I say, my comments are of advisory nature. It's something, if you
disagree what should be done on this plat, then you can work it out with the applicant. I don't see
any strong objection to that if the Highway Department agrees.
MR. LAPOINT-It looks like you've got about a 5,000 square foot turn, 50 by 100?
MR. SCARTELLI-Fifty by one hundred, yes.
LEON STEVES
MR. STEVES-Fifty by one hundred.
MR. SCARTELLI- The hammer head does extend the width of 100 foot by 50 foot. That was the dimensions
that were agreed upon with Mr. Naylor.
MR. LAURICELLA-Nick, why would he want that instead of a cul-de-sac?
MR. STEVES-I'm Leon Steves, for the record. He has, at different times, requested different ends,
and we've done quite a few of these hammer heads at the end of roads in the Town.
MR. LAURICELLA-Like where?
MR. SCARTELLI-There is a right-of-way that extends down to Sherman Avenue, but I think it's a deeded
right-of-way, but there isn't a road with that or anything, constructed.
MR. STEVES-Clendon Brook is a subdivision on Luzerne Road, on the north side, that has hammer heads
on it.
MR. LAPOINT-One hundred by fifty should be enough to turn a car around, an emergency vehicle around.
MR. BREWER-Is there a potential for that road to come through to Sherman Avenue? Is that what you
said?
MR. STEVES-Yes, there is a right-of-way through, no. I think for good planning it is desired to go
through, and we're bringing it to the property line for that purpose. The Board, themselves, and the
planner, should address that. It's only a short distance.
MR. CARTIER-So, we may be living with this hammer head for a long time, in other words?
MR. STEVES-That's right.
MR. LAPOINT-Number Three, monuments. No problem?
MR. STEVES-Well, yes, I do have a problem with that, in that, we do not have problems with monumentation
of any subdivision. Everyone of our subdivisions are monumented. I do have a problem with presetting
an elevation on that.
MR. YARMOWICH-Well, I'm citing verse on what the Code requires. If you've done it elsewhere in the
subdivision, you've satisfied the requirement. Maybe you can answer that question.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely. We'd be glad to set monuments and provide the Town with those elevations, after
setting them.
MR. LAPOINT-Number Four, road profiles and how they conflict with varied pipes, if at all.
3
'----
----"
MR. SCARTELLI-Okay. There's two conflicts. There's one conflict with the outfall pipe, here, between
Lots 9 and 10, and there's also a conflict down here at the intersection of Ferris and Scoon Creek.
Over here on the right hand side there are inverts that are shown for the structures and the pipes
in that area. The pipes are only about three to three and a half feet down, in both locations, here
and here, and the water line is down five and a half feet. So, there's at least two and a half to
three foot clearance.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Would it be a problem to put that on the final, to show a section?
MR. SCARTELLI-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, we can say we'll add a section.
MR. SCARTELLI-We can add that right on the profile.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay, add section to road profile.
MR. YARMOWICH-We'd also like, it's appropriate for control and construction that you show the centerline
road grades, as well, what's shown only as existing grade, and it would be best to have that for record
purposes of the Town.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay, and centerline profile, right?
MR. SCARTELLI-Yes, that's no problem.
MR. LAPOINT-Five, indicate the disposition of Walton Court storm sewer recharge basin inlet pipe.
MR. SCARTELLI-Okay. The idea, here, was to pick up the outfall pipe with the manhole and take the
pipe, the drainage that's coming down from Phases I and II, into the system and dissipate it to the
perforated system down in Phase III. We were anticipating leaving that pipe open just in case, as
a safety valve, in case there's a possible 100 year flood, thereby this recharge basin can take some
overflow.
MR. LAPOINT-For a backflow, correct?
MR. SCARTELLI-Correct.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay, but the disposition of that stomMater recharge basin would just be leave it as is,
correct?
MR. SCARTELLI-Correct. It was re-graded to a higher elevation, to elevation 401, which is higher than
the present groundwater.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, that's not shown on here, but that's minor.
MR. SCARTELLI-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, we're going to leave that open as a type of flood control. If the drywells
back up, it's going to back up the pipe and use the existing drainage basin which is now one foot
shallower, correct?
MR. SCARTELLI-The retention basin, about a foot and a half.
MR. LAPOINT-Abandon easement for Walton Court stomMater recharge basin.
MR. SCARTELLI-There is an easement, for maintenance purposes, given to the Town. If the retention
basin were left intact, that easement should be also left intact.
MR. LAPOINT-I buy that.
MR. YARMOWICH-I may not have clearly understood exactly what transpired at that meeting, but my Comments
Five and Six were based on the understanding that it was the Highway Department's intention to see
that basin eliminated. In either event, that's a decision that.
MR. SCARTELLI-Let me say this, there is sufficient amount of perforated pipe in the Phase III area
to dissipate all of the stomMater that is runoff, up to a 50 year storm. There is, as is shown, a
release will release anything that comes up to the flow, come up to a certain elevation on the road,
it will release out to a pipe, but there is sufficient surface area to dissipate the runoff.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, I guess what it boils down it is, if the trench stays, the easement can stay,
right?
4
---
MR. STEVES-Well, I think, real1y, Tom has said the recommendation should be made to the Town Board.
I think that should be between the Town Board and the Highway Department, as to how they want to handle
the disposition of that.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Drywell details should include a footing, no problem?
MR. SCARTELLI-No.
MR. LAPOINT-Rectangular frame grates?
MR. SCARTELLI-No problem.
MR. LAPOINT-No problem. Detail for concrete sanitary, change that detail. Ten, drywell , storm sewer
drain, trench details.
MR. SCARTELLI-That's been changed.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. You've changed that to geotextile?
MR. SCARTELLI-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-Eleven, appropriate erosion, have you got an apron on that 15 inch?
MR. SCARTELLI-Yes. There's shown riprap ditch section, and on the plan we've shown that we've cut
back the outfall back from the property line about 10 foot within the, of course, we've included the
rip rapped ditch section.
MR. LAPOINT-Is that drawing up there different from the one I have here?
MR. SCARTELLI-Yes, it is.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
MR. SCARTELLI-We've already made, included the changes that are shown on the review letter.
MR. CARTIER-Has Staff seen this? Has engineer seen this, this set?
MR. SCARTELLI-No.
MRS. PULVER-Well, they're only saying they're going to make these changes, Peter, that's on here on
the new plan, and they're working from the new plan.
MR. SCARTELLI-That's what we're saying is we're going to make these changes and submit it.
MR. AUFFREDOU-That was our problem.
MRS. PULVER-Right. They're not trying to submit this new plan to us.
MR. LAPOINT-We'l1 work on what we have in front of us. Okay. Current field topography should be
provided between the storm drain relief pipe outfall and existing stormwater retention area in Queen
Victorias Grant.
MR. SCARTELLI-There is elevation differential from this outflow pipe down to a low area down in the
back of Queen Victorias Grant, in addition to, there is another retention basin at the rear of the
Queen Victorias Grant. It's not shown on here, but it's about right in this area here.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay, but that's off site.
MR. SCARTELLI-That's normal drainage.
MRS. PULVER-Okay, and 13, fire hydrant.
MR. LAPOINT-Fire hydrant?
MR. SCARTELLI-Fire hydrant, we relocated the fire hydrant that was north of Scoon Creek Lane and the
Ferris Lane intersection, and we relocated to the south of the intersection, in this area here, for
that purpose.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay, but that doesn't diminish the protection?
MR. SCARTELLI-No. It was closer than required.
5
"----
.'-'
MR. LAPOINT-Okay, and you'd have to redo the perc tests?
MR. STEVES-No. The perc01ation tests were done and an the tests were greater than one minute, for
the purpose of sewage disposa1. Three minute forty seconds, one minute nineteen seconds.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
MR. STEVES-And we have done a series of six sets of perc01ation tests.
MR. MARTIN-What date were those done?
MR. STEVES-These tests were done on November 21st, 1991.
MR. LAPOINT-The perc01ation rate for the stormwater management has to meet sanitary?
MR. YARMOWICH-No. It's a design va1ue that the engineering is based upon. The question arises because
there's somewhat of a difference between what the perc01ation test for sewage disposaJ is. We take
the information we're given at vaJue as it's presented.
MR. STEVES-Tom didn't have the set of notes.
MR. LAPOINT-So, we'd have to add notes on your more recent percoJation test data?
MR. STEVES-WeJJ, these percoJation tests were dated November 21st of 1991.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Subsequent to the time when this Board and the Warren County PJanning Board requested
them to redesign this. Is that correct?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. LAURICELLA-How come you didn't present those to the engineers?
MR. STEVES-I did. I didn't, not to Tom Yarmowich. Our engineer's right here.
MR. LAURICELLA-But you didn't present them to Tom?
MR. STEVES-I gave them to Nick ScarteJJi for his use, and that's what he used. Tom did not get them.
MR. LAURICELLA-Don't you norma1Jy do that?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. YARMOWICH-Wen, it's required that enough information is presented to characterize the site, to
demonstrate it's suitabJe. There's no question as to its suitabnity. It just win be a question
as to the detans of construction for each and every residence. RegardJess of the testing that's done
in the subdivision, each residence win require its own perc test at the time of construction. So,
there's reaJJy no issue there, as a cJarifying comment.
MR. CARTIER-Just so I'm on the right wave1ength, aJJ of these that you've shown us tonight are a response
to Tom's Jetter that you got beforehand, correct?
MR. SCARTELLI-That's correct. We got them the 1ast week.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. W\RTIN-Does anybody see anything there of a nature or a substance that we need to tabJe this, or
can we go on with this?
MR. PULVER-Most of it's a11 just notations.
MR. LAURICELLA-I've got a question on Lot 36. How do you pJan on deve10ping that Jot?
MR. STEVES-There's a provision, if you go with a Jong driveway. There's a 40 foot wide strip,
practicany right from the intersection to the back, and then the house wouJd be Jocated in the back
next to the power Jine.
MR. LAURICELLA-And that house wiJ1 face the back of those other houses?
MR. STEVES-Yes. It wiJJ be far enough back. Everybody has a back yard.
MR. LAURICELLA-And that, we discussed at one time, about fJag shaped Jots. Is that a?
6
'~
---
MR. MARTIN-That's a good question. There's no way that can be avoided, Leon, in this.
MR. LAURICELLA-If they eliminate the lot it could be.
MRS. YORK-What happened, that was formerly a detention area, which, with the new drainage concept,
did not become necessary. So, they created another lot.
MR. CARTIER-You could four lots into three.
MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. There was no lot there before. It was simply an area in reserve for easement.
MR. SCARTELLI- This was a retention area, in here, for storm drainage. We did have the storm drainage
come in, about in this approximate location, and then discharge in through a detention basin.
MR. BREWER-Would that be a major problem if you made those four into three? They didn't have it before
MR. CARTIER-Tom, have you seen any of this?
MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. I have seen most of this.
MR. CARTIER-You've been through all of that? Okay. I guess my question is, we're at final. There
are a number of things that certainly have been addressed, and I have a problem with setting precedent,
and I guess my question is, are we willing to do this for every applicant that comes in with a list
of engineering concerns, and we kind of hash them out here, because if we do, then we can expect that
we're going to be going through this thing at final every time. The gentleman has suggested that maybe
we do table for a week and get everything cleaned up, and we have another meeting next week, and we
could certainly be sure that all our ducks are in a row. I'm uncomfortable approving something for
final that's still in a state of change, here, somehow. It seems to me when we approve final, it should
be final and be done, and I would have, certainly, no problem with sticking this on next week's agenda
for final, given the length of time that's been involved here. We're only talking another seven days.
MR. AUFFREDOU-There's no question that we've been at it for a long time, and we would certainly, if
that's the Board's decision, that's fine. We will abide by that and be back here next week, but I
would just like to point out that I sense, tonight, that many of these issues have been resolved, and
if there is a way, and I understand your concern about setting precedent, to grant final approval with
a condition that, perhaps, you hear from your engineer that, in fact, all of these recommendations
and stipulations, whatever you want to call them, have been incorporated into it, we can certainly
have, await a resolution from you next week. We just don't, I don't think Mr. Farone, frankly, would
want all of us to have to come back here. We've been here tonight, and I'm hoping that we can resolve
this tonight. Many of the issues are minor. If Mr. Yarmowich and Mr. Scartelli can resolve those,
perhaps a stipulation could be entered into, and we could submit our final for you next week, and it
could be a very simple resolution for you at that time. I'd just like to make it as simple as possible.
MR. CARTIER-Well, speaking for myself, making it as simple as possible is to not set precedent, here,
and I'm more than willing to stick this on the agenda next week.
MRS. PULVER-Well, I think we've approved projects before when they're, basically, notation, engineering
notations, and all this is just pretty much engineering notation, isn't it, Tom?
MR. YARMOWICH-I would agree so, as long as the Board is comfortable with waiving the minor discrepancies
with regard to road radius and the cul-de-sac arrangements, understanding that that's what the Highway
Department appears to agree with.
MR. STEVES-It also appears that we've perhaps shot ourselves in the foot, by condescending to the wishes
of the Board, to make this a single family residential development rather than duplexes, and to eliminate
the retention areas, and changing them, bringing us back before the Board in a situation where the
engineering review was necessary, when actually we were only coming in here for final approval. So,
we really have been cooperative.
MR. CARTIER-No question about that. I'm not debating that. I guess I'm asking you one more week of
cooperation.
MR. STEVES-The area of that lot is, I don't have the exact, I'd say it's an acre and a half in size.
MR. MARTIN-What's that, now, you're talking about?
MR. LAURICELLA-Lot 36.
MR. MARTIN-We've never seemed to resolve that question. Is that something you want to entertain the
idea of taking four down to three, or?
7
"-"
---
MRS. PULVER-I'd like to know for what purpose, because you don't like the way it looks on paper, or?
MR. STEVES-I mean, it was a month ago that we were told, lets get rid of these retention areas. So,
we said, okay, the best way to do that, then, is to create a lot in back. That was the suggestion
given to us, and that's what we did. So, I have a 40 foot, which is a requirement of the Town Code.
We just ran it back in and put that in.
MRS. PULVER-It has an unusual shape.
MR. STEVES-It does.
MRS. PULVER-But it still conforms to the Town of Queensbury Code.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MR. AUFFREDOU-All this was done, again, and to address the stormwater management concerns, and the
creation of a lot is really a by-product of that.
MR. MARTIN-Right. I understand that. Well, what's the Board's feeling, here? Peter, you seem to
think you'd feel better with bringing this back next week. Ed, what do you think?
MR. LAPOINT-Well, just to clarify where we're at, I think out of the 14 items in the Rist-Frost letter,
I think the only one of any real significance would be Item Number 12, where they're conveying water
into that adjacent stormwater management area. From the existing topography, there, it looks like
you've got a little gully, to begin with.
MR. SCARTELLI-That was the natural drainage down into that area.
MR. LAPOINT-And that gully is continuous into that drainage basin?
MR. SCARTELLI-Yes. This one continues down into this area.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I guess that's the only one of these that I see are really significant, in terms
of any impact on anybody else, would be Item Number 12, and if that is indeed continuous to that adjacent
stormwater management area, I mean, there's no relief in there that would prevent the water from flowing
to it. That's the only one of the 14 items that is of any significance.
MR. MARTIN-All right.
MR. AUFFREDOU-As we recall, in order to do that, that was a request from Mr. Naylor to channel the
water that way. Again, that was at our meeting.
MR. LAPOINT-So, when it reaches a certain level, only then will it pass into that level, and that's
at about 402, where the other basin is at 401. So, the tendency would be to run to the on-site basin
first.
MR. SCARTELLI-To give you some idea of numbers, the 50 year storm runoff from Phases I, II, and III
I think is somewhere around 14.5 cfs, if my memory serves me right. The area of the perforated pipe
will distribute something like 25.6, almost twice as much for a 50 year storm. So, the only time that
this, according to computations, overflow would work is when somewhere in the vicinity of a 100 year
storm occurs.
MR. LAPOINT-That puts that in perspective of its significance.
MR. YARMOWICH- That certainly does. The concern would be that if there were an overflow, some unusual
ground condition, very, very deep frost, and it wouldn't be any different than what would happen.
The natural outlet is the same place. We just wanted to get a reaction, an affirmation from the engineer
preparing the plan that they're not creating any unusual downflow areas by locating the overflow at
that point, and I believe that Mr. Scartelli is indicating that that's the case. I believe that to
be satisfactory.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Tim.
MR. BREWER-I don't really have any problems with it.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Jim.
MR. LAURICELLA-The only thing I have is that flag shaped lot.
MR. AUFFREDOU-For the record, that lot size is 61 and a half thousand.
MR. LAURICELLA-I'm not concerned about the size, but the plan is not a good plan.
8
'-
---
MRS. PULVER-Why, Jim?
MR. LAURICELLA-Because you're going to put a house back there in an island that's going to be facing
the back yards. It's not good planning to do that. You wouldn't buy a house back there.
MRS. PULVER-No, but somebody might, and I think it's up to that person to make that decision.
MR. LAURICELLA-I'm not saying somebody wouldn't, but it's not a good thing to do.
MR. MARTIN-Corinne?
MRS. TARANA-I don't like the plan on 36 either. I think that, you've got a driveway running right
between two other lots. I just don't think it's a good plan, that particular part of it.
MR. CARTIER-Is there some way to reconfigure that corner to get four lots, and get rid of the flag
shaped lot?
MR. STEVES-The location of this lot is close to Sherman Avenue. I doubt very much if anyone would
build between, he could actually face Sherman Avenue.
MR. MARTIN-So, they may actually face the house toward Sherman and not in the back yards of those?
MR. STEVES-That's right.
MR. BREWER-Would it be better if we adjusted these lines up here and made the driveway come in at the
end, rather than through these two lots?
THOMAS FARONE
MR. FARONE-Move everything down.
MR. BREWER-Yes, just move everything down.
MR. MARTIN-Is that something possible?
MR. FARONE-Come off the hammer head?
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. FARONE-No problem.
MR. BREWER-Move everything north, and then have the driveway come in on the end, at the very end of
Ferris Road, or Ferris Drive.
MR. STEVES-I can do it. You're the one that's shooting Paul Naylor in the foot, now. You tell Paul
that it was your recommendation to put the hammer head where he pushes his snow.
MR. BREWER-It would be the worst of two evils. I mean, rather than have you come between two houses.
MR. STEVES-Your recommendation is my command. I'll be glad to do it.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes, well, I don't know if it would be the worst of, I mean, snow's very important. Whether
or not somebody has a driveway in between two other lots is not as important.
MR. BREWER-How big is the hammer head, Ed?
MR. LAPOINT-Five thousand square feet, 100 by 50.
MR. MARTIN-50 feet, so it would be 90 feet of area in there. See, that's the thing. You're not losing
any of the area to push snow. You're adding the 40 feet onto the other side. So, you have a total
of 90 rather than 50 on that one side.
MR. STEVES-No. You do lose the area because you're telling me to put the driveway there, okay. So,
you don't have that room to pull in with your plow and push your snow ahead of you.
MR. CARTIER-Can he push that snow straight.
MR. MARTIN-I'd personally feel more comfortable with that design. I don't know how everybody else
feels. We will bear the wrath of Paul Naylor. So, Lee, we didn't have a public hearing left open
on this?
MRS. YORK-No.
9
'--'
-../
MR. MARTIN-This being final, and no SEQRA or anything like that. That's already been decided. So,
I think what I'm hearing is, the Board, we can generally move forward with this. Maybe with a design
notation to Lot 36, as we've just discussed. There doesn't seem to be anything insurmountable there
with the engineering comments, so is anyone willing to make a motion which would include, I think Ed's
probably got a pretty good handle on the engineering comments, and also a revision to Lot 36 as we
discussed? Does anyone want to make that motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-86 ~EENSIIJRY FOREST, PHASE III, Introduced by Edward
LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
For the subdivision of land into 36 single family residential lots, at Final Stage, with the following
stipulations: With regard to the Rist-Frost letter dated 20 April 1992, that the final drawing indicate
that monuments to be set with coordinate values and elevations during development construction phase.
That on the drawing road profiles be shown to demonstrate that buried piping does not conflict with
the center line profile of the road, and that the center line profile of the road be shown, and that
the Town Board determine the disposition of the easement for the Walton Court stormwater recharge basin
with note that the stormwater recharge basin will remain as part of the subdivision. That the drywell
detail include a footing. That square and rectangular frames or grates be added. That the notation
as to the sanitary manhole should be changed to a storm drain. That a geotextile fabric replace the
tar paper, and that the apron, along with grading details, be provided for the outlet of the 15 inch
storm drain relief pipe, and that the fire hydrant be relocated as discussed by the applicant's engineer,
and the appropriate percolation test data be added, and with respect to Lot Number 36, to move Lot
Number 34 and 35 northward 40 feet to allow for the driveway to enter on the southerly portion from
the hammer head. With the last condition being, and condition of the approval, that a notation be
added and an agreement reached that the Town of Queensbury will not provide any building permits until
the appropriate water fees are paid. The time frame, with the exclusion of the last stipulation, that
it be submitted within four weeks to the Planning Department.
Duly adopted this 21st day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
MR. DUSEK-Could I recommend a further condition to be added to this. There is an agreement that is
in existence between the developer and the Town of Queensbury, and I think it would be appropriate
if the Board would agree to this, to add a condition on the approval, as well as a requirement that
a notation be made on the map that the Town is not obligated to issue any building permits for residences
in the subdivision until such time as all fees for the water district are paid.
MR. FARONE-What are the appropriate water fees?
MR. DUSEK-That has to be worked out with the developer.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Paul, I'll call you on that tomorrow.
MR. DUSEK-There is an actual written agreement dated July of 1987 which provides that that is an
appropriate condition.
MR. LAPOINT-Regarding referenced agreement?
MR. DUSEK-Yes.
MR. AUFFREDOU-We'll get to work on that.
MRS. YORK-Would the Board like to give a time frame for the developer to make these changes?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. We need a time frame, Ed.
MR. DUSEK-I don't think you need a time frame on that last one because it's tied to the building permits.
No building permits will be issued.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin
NOES: Mr. Cartier
MR. CARTIER-Just a quick comment, here. I think this Board is opening a door, and I hope something
doesn't come through and bite us, as a result of this, because we're going to see more and more of
this kind of thing.
MR. MARTIN-Point well taken. (7:49 p.m.)
Ð IIJSINESS:
10
---
SITE PLAN NO. 15-92 TYPE: UItLISTED UR-I0 ~EENSBURY UNITED METHooIST CHURCH ClUfER: SAME AS ABOVE
74 AVIATION ROAD ADDITION OF 17,500 SQ. FT. TO PROVIDE LARGER SAlfCTUARY AND ADDITIOItAL SUNDAY SCHOOL
ROOMS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 97-2-3.1 LOT SIZE: 2.9 ACRES SECTION: 179-17
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:49 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, S.P. # 15-92, Queensbury United Methodist Church, April 9,
1992, Meeting Date: April 21, 1992 "The Queensbury Methodist Church is planning an addition of 17,500
sq. ft. adjacent to their existing facility. The Zoning Administrator's determination has been attached.
This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for site plan review: 1. The location
arrangement and size is generally compatible with the site. Lighting is to the rear of the facility
and will be for parking areas and accessways. Signage is existing. 2. Vehicular access is existing.
This is a highly visible roadway and is also highly traveled. The traffic generated from the school
across the street, the adjoining church, the Methodist Church, and the background traffic heading to
the mall and the Northway can be hazardous at times. Unfortunately, there is little that can be done
to improve this situation at this time. 3. Parking and loading appear to be sufficient. The Zoning
Administrator has indicated that no variances are necessary. 4. Pedestrian access would not appear
to be an issue. 5. The adequacy of storm drainage facilities will be addressed by the engineer.
6. The water service is from the Town. The septic system will be moved to the front of the structure.
The engineer will comment on the adequacy of such. 7. The current structure has a number of existing
trees. There will be a green area left along Burke Road. The Board may wish to ask about other planting
being considered for the Aviation Road side of the building. 8. Fire lanes and emergency access is
not a problem. 9. Erosion control devices should be utilized during and after construction. The
plans and design appear well thought out. If there are no other engineering concerns the staff
recommends approval."
MR. MARTIN-Okay, and we have a short notation from Pat Crayford, regarding, I guess that sort of, like,
tracks the.
MRS. YORK-Yes. This is the referral form. I discussed this with Mrs. Crayford some time ago, and
we agreed that I would attach it, where appropriate, to give you some sense of her determination.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right, and we have Warren County Planning Board approving, and we have a letter
from Tom. Do you want to take us through your comments?
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, April 17, 1992 "We have reviewed the project
and have the following engineering comments: 1. The required number of parking spaces should account
for all building uses and not just the seating from the proposed sanctuary. 2. The parking bay labeled
as 19 spaces actually contains 18 spaces. 3. Access for the two (2) proposed handicap parking spaces
located adjacent to the existing church should be arranged to provide the shortest possible route to
a handicapped accessible building entrance. 4. A note should be added to the plans stipulating sediment
and erosion control during construction in conformance with New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and
Sediment Control. 5. Spot grades and level sections of the proposed handicap ramp should be indicated
to demonstrate the arrangement shown can conform to 9NYCRR1100.1C. 6. The clearing limits along the
southeastern corner of the parking lot should be revised to correspond with the proposed grading and
limits of excavation for the drywell installation. 7. With regard to stormwater management: a.
The grading for all new pavement along the east and south portion of the rear parking area should direct
stormwater runoff to a SWM device to provide quality control for runoff generated in developed areas.
b. Actual drainage areas tributary to a study point should be used for SWM analysis. Areas not draining
to the proposed drywells should not be included in the drywell calculations. c. Stormwater management
should be provided for the increase in runoff from subcatchment 1, unless it can be demonstrated that
this increase can be offset by a corresponding decrease in the predeveloped rate from subcatchment
3 based on a revised calculation that satisfies the previous comment. d. The drywell sidewall area
and volume calculations provided are based on incorrect radius and height values. Drywell infiltration
modeling is affected and should be revised. 8. With regard to subsurface sewage disposal: a The
basis of design should address maximum utilization of all existing and proposed facilities. NYSDEC
Design Standards should be used to establish the design hydraulic loading rate. b. Design criteria
calculations shown on the plan need correction. c. All absorption trench laterals must be of equal
length to provide equal loading. d. The "Standard Disposal System" (absorption trench) detail should
be revised to address the following: 1) Fill above the barrier material over the lateral is indicated
with a stone symbol, but is labelled earth. Depth of earth refill in trench shall be 6" to 12", not
"as required". 2) Minimum crushed stone size of 3/4". 3) Minimum separation to seasonal high
groundwater elevation is 24". 4) Building paper, if used as barrier material over the stone around
laterals, should be specified as untreated. Geotextile material should also be indicated. 9. If
site plan approval is considered, the Planning Board should stipulate that the applicant conduct and
submit for review soils investigations to verify SWM and sewage disposal design assumptions."
11
''"--''
---
MR. YARMOWICH-And I'd like to note that the engineer on the project, for the applicant, due to seasonal
1 imitations, has communi cated with me that that I s been successfully done since, and I think that that
answer has been adequately addressed.
MR. MARTIN-For Number 9, your Number 9 comment?
MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. Number 9. Mr. Nace?
MR. NACE-For the record, my nameis Tom Nace with Haanen Engineering. Let me start with Staff Comments,
first. I think the only thing we'd respond to are comments 7 and 9. Number Seven, regarding the
landscaping, we have a landscaping plan which shows trees planted along the front of the structure.
There will be semi ornamental windows along the front. We plan some relatively slender, tall trees
to accentuate that a little bit. I'm not quite sure what the Staff Comments really meant there. Erosion
control devices during construction, if anybody has looked at the site, it's very flat, very sandy
soil. Erosion control is on it. If you put standard details on the drawing, they're really going
to be meaningless. There's nowhere for runoff to go except into the ground. So, we can do it. It
really doesn't mean anything to you. Engineering's comments, I'll run through them quick. If there's
anything that you want to clarify, stop me. The parking space, your Code calls for, I believe it's
one space for every five seats in the main assembly area, which in this case, is the sanctuary.
MR. LAURICELLA-The only thing is, this is not used for a sanctuary, right?
MR. NACE-It will have multiple uses, but those uses will occur at different times. You won't have
a fellowship hold used for 100 or 200 people at the same time they're having church.
MR. LAURICELLA-What's the difference between the Engineering Comments and the Staff Comments. There
seems to be a discrepancy.
MR. YARMOWICH-To answer that, the maximum other uses would not exceed what's currently anticipated
for the sanctuary, answers that.
MR. NACE-Your Code requires us to have 55 spaces. We personally think the Code's a little inadequate
there. We've provided 82. Parking bay labels 19 does, in fact, I lopped one off the end at the last
minute and forgot to increase the number of spaces shown on the plan. So, he's correct, and we'll
change that. Number Three, the two proposed handicapped spaces on here are specifically to serve the
handicapped entrance at the lower level in the existing structure.
MR. CARTIER-Yes.
think he was referring to the other two, because that's a question I had.
MR. YARMOWICH-No. I was referring to the two, if there's a handicapped access to the lower level of
the existing church, then it would justify their location.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, let me jump in right there, then, because the lower handicaps are the ones
I had a question about. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to move those up so they're right in line
with that ramp?
MR. NACE-This is the ramp. This is all ramp, starting from there.
MR. CARTIER-That whole thing is ramp?
MR. NACE-That's right.
MR. CARTIER-To make the slope, that whole thing has to be ramped?
MR. NACE-That's what the Codes call for.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. NACE-And while we're on that, Comment Number Five, this ramp will be constructed of wood. It will
be part of the architect's plans submitted to the Building Department, and it will be reviewed for
conformance with your Code, Section whatever it is, at the time the building permit is issued.
MR. MARTIN-Okay, so you've taken care of three, four you already talked about earlier, right?
MR. NACE-That's correct.
MR. YARMOWICH-So, you'll do, the architect will do what's ever necessary, if it means returns on the
ramp or whatever, to keep that handicapped okay?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. So, you're saying Number Five is an issue at the building permit stage, right?
12
--
-
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. NACE-The clearing limits, if Tom is correct, we do not show for the excavation of the pit, which
we will include. We'll change those. Stormwater management, because the soils are very porous and
very permeable, we've tried to provide conection for the back part of the parking lot, half of it
into an existing drywell, the other half of it into a new drywen. There may be some little fringe
areas. We have a 1 ittle berm to direct the runoff into the drywen, to make sure it doesn't an run
off out of the parking lot. There may be a few little places up in here where a wee little bit of
drainage from the spot in here reaches the edge of the parking lot before it hits that berm, and along
the edge of the road, here. We think there's a good enough buffer, just by common sense and inspection,
to provide infiltration into the natural soil in those areas. If we have to, we can extend that berm
on up. We'n work that out with Tom directly. The calculations, there is, as Tom pointed out, in
D, a problem with my math in part of the calculations, which I win correct, and if required, we win
put in a second drywell to take care of that. So, at any rate, the drywell calculations will be revised.
What I tried to do with the overan calculations was to show that, for the whole site, even though
we may be increasing runoff up in one of the sub-areas up front to catch the additional roof runoff,
but overan we're keeping it at or below the previous levels. Number Eight, sewage disposal, without
going through each one of them, there are several items there where there are minor changes that are
necessary in the details. We will correct those to come into strict conformance with the State of
New York State Department of Health Code, DEC Code. The design criteria for the loading of septic
systems, we did deviate a little bit from the DEC Code, because we just know from previous history
that the water use in the church is much less than the Code requires. I 'n work that out with Tom,
and if the Board approves, and I'll come to an agreement. If he agrees, we'll do it my way. If he
doesn't agree, we'll do it his way.
MR. MARTIN-How do you feel about that?
MR. YARMOWICH-All I'd really like to see is what's the anticipated maximum utilization. Granted, there's
272 seats in the Sanctuary, and given the event, that could be a capacity event for the day. There
may be other uses throughout the day. The point is, is whatever sewage disposal design is used should
account for what would be the most traffic in and out of the facility in a day and how much water would
be used, and that's all that I ask.
MR. NACE-Okay, and that's, in essence, what I've done, from past history, taking into account that
we're going to more people there for functions. The maximum use occurs during a church supper or
something like that, and we do realize the increase use. So, we've provided for that.
MR. MARTIN-And you design off that peak use?
MR. NACE-That's correct.
MR. MARTIN-An right. Again, it looks like we've got a series of engineering comments, here, that
are not insurmountable. What's the Board's feeling, here, on these? Anything pop out at you as
something that's a real problem, or do you think this is something we can proceed with?
MR. LAPOINT-Even without addressing Number Seven directly, it doesn't look like the water runs off
site from these limited areas.
MR. NACE-There's no way that it's going to get off site. It doesn't presently, and we still have
sufficient buffer all the way around the paved and hard surfaces, unless the ground's frozen, and even
then we'd have a low spot in the back that's going to collect it on-site.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Now, when you recalculate for 7D, if necessary, did I hear you right, you'd add
another drywell if that shows.
MR. NACE-Yes. In essence what I did, I took the radius of the drywell as being the diameter, the actual
diameter. So, it's half the capacity, without actually doing the calculations.
MR. MARTIN-An right. If there's no more comment at this time, why don't I open a public hearing and
see if there's any comment from the public on this application, and see if that brings anything to
light. So, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the public who wishes to address the
Board regarding this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
13
---
'--.-/
MR. MARTIN-This brings us to a stage of SEQRA Review. Now, I guess this brings back, again, any
discussion about the engineering comments. Do you think there's anything here that we can't proceed
forth to the SEQRA?
MR. YARMOWICH-I believe that there's no question as to whether or not there's a capability to support
the stormwater management concept, and given that sewage disposal is going to conform to, pretty much,
standard practices, I'd say no. I don't think the site is going to change in any way, as a result
of these comments, in terms of its configuration or physical appearance.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. This is Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MDE
RESOLUTION NO. 15-92, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CJjEENSBURY UNITED METHODIST
CHURCH, for an addition of a 17,500 square foot to provide larger sanctuary and additional Sunday School
rooms. ,
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations
of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations
for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board
will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or
a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 21st day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin
NOES: NONE
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Any other comments about this? Anyone have a motion they'd like to make?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-92 QUEENSBURY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, Introduced by Edward LaPoint
who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Lauricella:
Addition of a 17,500 sq. ft. addition to provide larger sanctuary and additional Sunday School rooms,
with the following stipulations: That the applicant, with respect to the Rist-Frost letter dated April
17th, 1992, reevaluate the necessity to extend the berm along the south and east portion of the rear
parking area, to the extent necessary to provide additional runoff control, and with respect to Item
7D, that the applicant's engineer recalculate the drywell volume calculations, and based upon those
results, if necessary, redesign and install additional drywells, and with regard to Item Number 8A,
that the applicant's engineer negotiate with Rist-Frost and discuss the basis of design to address
maximum utilization of all existing and proposed facilities, based on New York State DEC design
standards, and to design and modify, if necessary, the subsurface sewage disposal system, if required.
Duly adopted this 21st day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
MR. MARTIN-And he'll make the corrections regarding Items 2 and 6 accordingly, right? Those were just
minor.
MR. NACE-That's correct.
14
----
---
MR. CARTIER-Then I would say that that's what they, in fact, approved, because they reference that
variance number in their motion.
MR. DUSEK-Before you draw that conclusion, though, I think you're going to want to hear from the
applicant, and hear the entire facts there.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. DUSEK-I just wanted to sUl1l1larize this, to bring us up to speed. After the Zoning Board approved
that, or gave that variance, whatever it stands for, the matter came back to the Planning Board. The
Planning Board, at that point, went through the proper procedures, and I believe, from everything I
can tell in the record, that same map, again, was before the Planning Board with the less than 20,000
square foot lots shown on it, and was approved, and it was ultimately filed. So, that's where we are.
We have a map on file, with questions as to whether or not, and I think there's, like, maybe 10 or
so lots, that are less than 20,000 square feet out of a 36 lot subdivision, and the thought, as I
understand it, is to just bring this to the Board's consideration and see where it goes, hear the
developer out, and his attorney, and then perhaps we can discuss it.
MRS. PULVER-One question, it says, subdivision was approved for preliminary and final.
MR. DUSEK-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Those were the old days. They did them in one shot back then.
MRS. PULVER-I know, but why are they here, because they did not file the mylar?
MR. DUSEK-No, no. It's all filed. It was officially done, but the problem is that there's lots on
the map that are under 20,000 square feet. So, the question is, could the Planning Board have done
that? Could they have approved a map with less than 20,000 square foot lots?
MR. MARTIN-Because the variance approval was for 20,000 square foot, and they have many that are under
that.
MRS. PULVER-And that's the map that's on file?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-There's enough blame to go around, here, in terms of the map that was filed. Somebody,
and who knows who at this point, didn't look at this map closely enough, a number of times. So, I
think, the hardship for the applicant would be, to me, that he cannot get a building permit for lots
under 20,000 square feet out there. Is that correct?
MR. DUSEK-Well, my understanding, and Pat Crayford, I believe, is here tonight. Back in 1990, Pat
did make a decision that building permits could not be issued for lots under 20,000 square feet, and
that's also one of the reasons why we thought it's just better to get this whole thing out on the table
so that everybody can take a look at it and maybe we can rectify the situation somehow.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. So, we have all the background, then, in terms of Paul's information,
and I believe Mr. O'Connor's here representing the applicant. I don't know if it's proper to call
him that, or the developer, in this case. Could you give us, I don't know if it's best to call it
your version of the.
MR. O'CONNOR-I am Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little and O'Connor. I appear tonight under
protest and with reservation of the rights of Robert McDonald, who owns some of the lots on the map
in question. He is the person to whom notice was given of this particular meeting. Our understanding
of what took place is quite a bit different.
MR. MARTIN-Okay, well, that's why we're here.
MR. O'CONNOR-First of all, we think that your resolution of March 24th is arbitrary, in that it was
premised upon a presentation by Mr. Dusek, at that time, indicating that it was his belief that in
1981, when the first approval was obtained, the zoning required 20,000 square foot lots, when in fact
that was incorrect. That was the whole premise of your March 24th resolution, when you brought this
up. We also think that your March 24th resolution is arbitrary, in that you have not, Staff has not,
undertaken to review, to define it's review that has gone with this particular matter, every subdivision
which took place since 1967, when we first adopted the subdivision regulations We've got some
inconsistencies, here, but if you look at the intent of the party and you look at the fairness of the
party, you'll understand that Mr. McDonald has been before this Board twice before for final approval,
for the subdivision. He's been before the Town Board as recently as 1989, when he built and constructed
the road based upon this number of lots, and offered that road for dedication. He sold some of the
lots, within the subdivision, based upon that total number of the lots being a return for that
16
"--"
--.-r
subdivision. I think when you look at that and you look at fairness, and you look at past applications,
even past applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm glad Mr. Turner's here, because there have
been other applications in subdivisions with people that got caught up with undersized lots, and people
have come in and gotten a blanket variance to anow them to continue those undersized lots, but let
me get back to the facts, if you will. This subdivision was first approved in May, May 6th, 1981.
At that time, the property was zoned RR-3. The required lot size for RR-3 was 12,000 square feet.
I'd like to read to you a copy of the 1967 Zoning Ordinance which was then in effect. You didn't have
a major change in the Zoning Ordinance in the Town of Queensbury until 1982. If you take a look at
that, I've marked and highlighted in yellow, I've marked the area of the subdivision and I've also
marked the use schedule as you used to have them, on the back of the subdivision, which shows that,
at that time, 12,000 square feet was the minimum lot size required. Then I call your attention to
the map, and this is the same map, and this is the same map that was approved in 1981, that was
re-submitted in 1983. Right on the map, building lot areas as shown. This wasn't a question that
maybe somebody didn't make calculations, or would have to make calculations or not. If you look at
the map, I believe that you will find that there are no lots less than 14,000 square feet, or certainly
none less than 12,000 square feet. Most of them are 18,000 and above. I guess there's two, if I look
quickly, maybe three. There's a 14, 16, 15. They an comply with the size requirement in 1981. I
give that to you for background.
MR. CARTIER-But, can I interrupt you for a minute? The fact that he did not file a map, doesn't that
make that all moot, at that point?
MR. O'CONNOR-He did lose his approval because he failed to file, the applicant at that time, failed
to file in the County Clerk's Office, !. map within the required period of time. The Zoning Ordinance
was amended in 1982, effective June of '82, which would make this an SR-30 zone, which meant, basically,
for Single Family Residential, you had 30,000 square feet. Some time after that, it was discovered
that the map had not been filed. He began a variance application, and this we, Mr. Buckley had a prior
meeting. I don't know if he's going to be available or not. He is the person who made the application
for the applicant at that time, filed a variance application dated June 29th, 1983, after the revision
of the Zoning Ordinance. As I understand it, and it's different than it would be now, Mr. Buckley
signed a variance application in blank. He gave to the Building Department a map. The same map which
was submitted in 1981, which said that due to administrative error, we need to get this re-approved
so that we can file at the County Clerk's Office, and I make that point because Mr. McDonald never
saw the application, which has some language in it that is bothersome, until, I think 1989, when he
was confronted with it at that particular time, and this is proof that we can put in, if it's necessary,
depending on which way we're going, and I agree with what Mr. Cartier said, that there's enough fault
here to go all the way around, and hopefully we're going to look at what the intent of the parties
were, and what fairness would dictate. The approvals that were given on the variance do not preclude
the fact that the approval was on the map that was submitted, and Mr. Turner's here. I don't know
if he has any specific reconection of what he did in June of 1983. I will stand by what Mr. McDonald
has told me, is that they never, in their discussion, had any discussions to the fact that they were
limiting the approval to 20,000 square foot lots. They were asking for an approval, based upon the
map as submitted, which as Mr. Dusek says, has a number of lots that, obviously, don't comply. It's
the same number of lots that he had before. If you actually took the number of lots, I don't think,
mathematically, you would end up with the same number, if they were going to be the 20,000 square foot
configuration. There's no change in the road. There's no change of any nature, this, in fact's the
map. If you look here, you can see the approval, that's very faint, which was the 1991, and the map
was simply re-approved in 1983. In fact, there was a lot of discussion before this was submitted,
with Dick Roberts, who was then the Chairman of the Planning Board, as to how to go about getting by
the time delay on the filing of the subdivision plat. I won't bother showing you a copy of the '82
Ordinance, because we admit that it's 30,000 square feet. The language on the application that is
a problem is that proposed use, it's subdivision, lot size 20,000 square feet instead of 30,000 square
feet. Mr. Buckley has no idea why that appears on it. He believes that he signed the application
blank. If you look at the rest of the language, it talks about subdivision plans have been approved.
He is referring to the map that they submitted at the same time that they submitted this particular
map. If you take a look at the approval by the Warren County Planning Board, and I've asked them to
look at their file. They looked at it. They have this same map on file. They do not have a different
map showing 20,000 square foot. Their approval was for a recommendation to the Z8A, an area variance
to allow for less than the required lot size. There was no restriction to their approval that it be
at least 20,000 square feet. It says, the Warren County Planning Board concurs with the approval by
the Town Planning Board, since the procedural error took place with the filing of a subdivision and
a zoning changed the density, changed the lot size. The Planning Board, in their recommendation, at
that time, they had to make recommendations to the ZBA for area variances, said the Planning Board
recommends approval of this area variance, as there was a procedural error in the filing of this
subdivision, and a zoning changed the density, changed lot size. The only minutes I haven't actually
had and looked at were the actual minutes of the Planning Board meeting, although I will tell you that
the minutes that were kept back in 1983 are not pervasive minutes. They appear to be summarization
minutes, and they do lack significantly. The minutes of the variance application, 846, are very brief.
The Sherman Island and Corinth Road, McDonald Variance Number 846, Represented by Ray Buckley Area
Variance. Mr. Buckley explained this was an administrative problem, as the subdivision had been started
a while ago and approval was prior to the adoption of the new regulations. The map wasn't filed in
the County Clerk's Office. A variance on lot size is needed for the Planning Board to approve. It
17
---------
-...-"
doesn't specify a variance of certain size or nature or whatever. Mrs. Goetz asked why it wasn't filed.
Mr. McDonald answered that he didn't realize this was a problem. The Chairman added that we should
be concerned with the neighborhood character. There was no one present either for or against the
approval of the request. The Planning Board recommended approval along with the Warren County Planning
Board. RESOLVED the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals approved Variance 846, the practical difficulty
for the request has been shown mainly the zoning change. Now, early this morning, when I talked to
Mr. Dusek, he was telling me about, he thought, initially, in 1981, the Board wouldn't have had the
approval, because in 1981, it should have been approval for 20,000 square foot lots, and my discussion
with him, telling him, no, in 1981 you could have 12,000 square foot lots. He got back to me, later
in the afternoon, and when he got back to me, he talked about the public notice that went out. I don't
have a copy of that public notice in my files, but that does create a problem, or on its face a question,
because the public notice that went out for the variance meeting states that it was for consideration
of an area variance for the 20,000 square foot lots, and I would leave it to Mr. Dusek, maybe, to tell
you exactly what it says, but that was the essence.
MR. DUSEK-Well, it says, to consider an appl ication for an area variance of Robert McDonald, Southern
Exposure Subdivision, to create a subdivision with 20,000 square foot lots in lieu of the required
30,000 square foot lots in an SR-30 zone on the property situated at Sherman Island and Corinth Roads.
There was a little bit ahead of that, too, the introductory paragraph, but that's the sum and substance
of the notice.
MR. O'CONNOR-It is my position that that notice is sufficient to have granted an area variance as
submitted for the lots, regardless of the size. I believe it gives sufficient notice to people that
would be involved, that this land was involved with the variance application. I think that that's
the purpose and intent of the notice requirements. I also believe that in addition, area variances
at that time, people got personal mailings as to the area variance that was being undertaken. I don't
have that particular part of the files. I do know that, concurrent with that, there were two notices,
or two articles in the paper which are much clearer and much more to the point, one being the Queensbury
Planning Board will hold public hearings at 8:00 p.m. Wednesday, to gather input on two proposed
subdivisions. The Board will review a 36 lot subdivision on Sherman Island and Corinth Roads, and
a 49 lot development on the east side of Ridge Road and South Sunnyside Road, both involve single family
houses. Both proposed subdivisions are in Suburban Residential zones requiring lots of 30,000 square
feet. The development on Sherman Island and Corinth Roads called Southern Exposure was previously
approved by the planners, but final subdivision maps were never filed with the Town, explains Richard
Roberts, Chairman of the Planning Board. Since that time, the Town increased the minimum lot size
in the area necessitating the review application by the developer, without really restriction as to
how far a variance was being requested or proposed at that time. The other is another article and
it's the same thing. These were concurrent with what was going on at the time of the variance
application. The approval by the Zoning Board simply said the Board approved a variance practical
difficulty due to zoning change. There is no restriction on that, as to what they approved. It's
my position that the application is, in fact, as it is today, the written application as well as the
materials submitted, and the material submitted clearly indicates that these lots did not comply with
30,000 square foot. The highlighted on my copy, which was, and I understand that the map that Mrs.
Crayford put up came from the ZBA file, and I would note that for the record. That map that we've
been referring to, which clearly shows lot size, came from the ZBA file. On this particular one, here,
I have simply highlighted the lots that were not in conformance. If you look at it, the first six
lots on the map are 19,450 square feet. I mean, to conceive or to try to put, somebody's digging very
hard to come up with a reason as to why the variance that was granted was is legitimate. Why would
they not change, by 50 feet, those lots, if they, in fact, were really looking for 20,000 square foot
lots, or arguing for 20,000 square foot lots?
MR. CARTIER-Fifty feet? Where do you get 50 feet?
MRS. PULVER-Five hundred and fifty feet.
MR. O'CONNOR-Five hundred and fifty feet. There's one, I think the number is close to what Paul said.
I didn't count them.
MR. CARTIER-Seventeen lots undersized.
MRS. PULVER-There's seventeen.
MR. O'CONNOR-The lots, which I marked on here with a red mark, are no longer owned by Mr. McDonald.
MR. LAURICELLA-Which ones are those, Mike?
MR. CARTIER-Yes, could you read those off, the lot numbers, are off the playing field, in a sense,
correct? They've been purchased and built on?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. They have not been built on.
MR. CARTIER-But they've been purchased?
18
----
---
MR. O'CONNOR-They have been conveyed to another individual, other than Mr. McDonald.
MR. CARTIER-They are no longer in his ownership?
MR. O'CONNOR-Right.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. LAURICELLA-One individual, Mike?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. wen, no. Let me look at the abstract. Mr. McDonald does not own Lots 2, 4, 6,
8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 28, 30, 31, 33, and 35. Those lots were conveyed, in 1985, to Margaret
M. McDonald, and that deed was recorded, May 31st, 1985, Book 671 of deed, Page 286.
MR. CARTIER-Is that a relative?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, that is a relative.
MR. CARTIER-How?
MR. O'CONNOR-Relative by marriage.
MR. DUSEK-Isn't it true that she is a wife, Mike?
MR. O'CONNOR-Relative by marriage, yes.
MR. DUSEK-The wife, right?
MR. O'CONNOR-I suppose it could be relative by marriage otherwise. Lots 24, 25, and 26 are not in
his title.
MR. CARTIER-They have been sold?
MR. O'CONNOR-They have been sold to other parties.
MR. CARTIER-Twenty four, twenty five, and twenty six?
MR. O'CONNOR-Fitzgerald owns one, a person by the name of Udder owns one.
MR. CARTIER-So, those three are not an issue anyway because they're 20,000, okay. So, they're off
the playing field.
MRS. PULVER-Wen, they are an issue if the 20,000 variance doesn't work, because it was 30,000 at the
time.
MR. CARTIER-No.
lots under 20.
some under 20s.
I think the question is, they're under 20, that's the question. They're a bunch of
He got a variance for 20,000 square foot instead of 30,000, and we're confronted by
MR. DUSEK-If I could just re-focus it, too. The issue, here, that's before the Board, I think, is
whether or not the original Planning Board approval is valid. If the Zoning Board's decision, which
Mike is arguing, was that the map itself was approved, then I think the argument is that, and successful
argument argument is that the Planning Board's decision was acceptable and fine. If, however, the
Zoning Board meant to only give variances to 20,000 square feet, now you've got a Planning Board approval
that's contrary to what the law would be.
MR. CARTIER-Which is illegal.
MR. DUSEK-Right.
MRS. PULVER-Wen, are we to think, then, that the Planning Board, possibly, could have approved a map
that was not approved by the Zoning Board?
MR. DUSEK-No. I think it's safe to say, from everything I've heard anyway, and Mike, you have better
evidence, at this point, than I do, but it appears that that map was before the Zoning Board.
MRS. PULVER-Yes, that's kind of what I believe right now.
MR. O'CONNOR-This map is from your Zoning Board file.
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
19
-----
--
MR. O'CONNOR-This is a map that I had from our files, that we've obtained.
MRS. PULVER-So, what we have to decide is if, the map was approved by the Zoning Board and then,
therefore, was approved by the Planning Board, then this is actually the case. These lots are in effect.
MR. DUSEK-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR- The other issue which gets clouded is that in 1990, beginning some time in the summer
of 1989, this road was constructed. The water lines were put in place, and the road was offered to
the Town of Queensbury for the purpose of dedication, based upon this map and based upon this
configuration, and accepted by the Town of Queensbury. We have one layer upon another layer, of
different approval, and this particular developer, if you would call Mr. McDonald a developer, has
been to this Town many, many times with the same application. At that time, it was an issue as to
how many lots were on there. I don't think the Town Board looked at it and just approved the road.
In fact, I think there's a petition, although we vary with the petition that was actually signed by
a number of people who had concerns about the acceptance of that Town road at the time, because it
was supposedly altered after signature, but the Town Board took Mr. McDonald through this same hurdle
that now he is going through again.
MR. DUSEK-The Town Board at that point, though, if I may interrupt, I don't believe ever reached a
conclusion as to whether or not the lots, or the Planning Board approval was acceptable. In fact,
I think the record will show from the Zoning Administrator, that there was, at that point in time,
the thought of filing something at the Clerk's Office, indicating that the Zoning Administrator would
not be approving building permits for those under 20,000 square foot lots. It was recently brought
to our attention that that was never filed, which is one of the reasons that also triggered this review.
MR. O'CONNOR-There is no resolution by the Town Board authorizing that. There is no resolution by
this Board to authorize that type filing. It was resisted by Mr. McDonald and told that if it was
filed, it would be challenged in court.
MR. CARTIER-Is this Board being asked to decide whether this is a legal document?
MR. DUSEK-I think you're being asked to decide whether or not you feel the original Planning Board
approved map should, in fact, remain on file at the County.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-But, ultimately, the question is what you just asked, Mr. Cartier.
MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm trying to duck from making a legal decision, here, is what I'm trying to do.
MR. O'CONNOR-Again, I indicate it to you, with as much politeness as I can, I appear here with
reservation. You started in 1981, and I don't know, or I'll recite it to you quickly. I think there's
a rule that you have to file the map at the County Clerk's Office within 60 days of approval, 60 or
120 days of approval.
MR. CARTIER-You're talking about the first one that didn't get filed?
MR. O'CONNOR-The first one.
MR. CARTIER-See, the way I'm thinking, that's awash. That's not even part of the equation, here.
We have to go beyond that, as far as I'm concerned.
MR. O'CONNOR-I agree. I'm just trying to say why we're here, and except for the fact for somebody
taking it up to the County Clerk's Office and paying the $20 to file it, you never would have gotten
back to.
MR. MARTIN-The real crux of the matter, I see, is that, was the Zoning Board's decision, approving
that variance, approving 20,000 square foot lots, and for whatever reason they didn't look at that
map, or are they just assuming this would be adjusted by the Planning Board, or were they approving
the map?
MR. LAPOINT-You almost have to assume they approved the map.
MRS. PULVER-Yes, I kind of think they had to do that, too.
MRS. TARANA-In 1980, is this the map that you had?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MRS. TARANA-Then why does this say 32 lots and that shows 36 lots?
MR. MARTIN-What's that?
20
"--"
---
MRS. TARANA-It says, this is their subdivision review, Planning Board, 32 lots. The map has 36 lots.
MR. CARTIER-Where are you?
MRS. TARANA-I found it on here. I found it a number of places, that the map says 32 lots.
MRS. TARANA-Where did you get that?
MR. DUSEK-I have a copy of the Planning Board minutes dated October 1st, 1980, which indicate Subdivision
No. 10-80, Robert McDonald, 32 lots.
MR. LAURICELLA-It's right on the back of here, too.
MR. O'CONNOR-I have the minutes of the May 6th, 1981 meeting, with Subdivision No. 10-80, from 32 lots,
Corinth and Sherman Islands. Motion by Montesi, carried by Mann, to grant Preliminary and Final approval
of this subdivision map, public hearing held December 3rd, 1980, and at that time, when the map came
out at the Planning Board, the first time around, it was this 32 lot subdivision.
MR. MARTIN-I think what the difference is, Paul, is that this is a conceptual approval, and at
Preliminary and Final it may have been changed.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Mr. McDonald, why don't you come up and speak, if you know that better. You've
asked me something in 1981 and '82 that I really don't know.
ROBERT MCDONALD
MR. MCDONALD-I'm Robert McDonald, the subdivider of the subdivision, and Mr. Buckley subdivided the
property before me. The subdividers and the Planning Boards know more about these things than I do,
and when a person approached me at one time, to buy a piece of property off of him, after this here
had been subdivided and supposedly everything was done through the engineer, Mr. Buckley, it was
finalized, and as far as I understood, everything was done. At that time, the party that went to Mr.
Lynn at the time, he was a Building Inspector, were told that they didn't have the map of my subdivision,
and that's the first time I was alerted that we had a problem. From that point on, I went to the problem
to get it straightened out. The original map went through the Planning process. It went through all
the bases, the three steps, all we had to do, and that's what you said before, you had a question on
it, about the Preliminary approval and Final approval. The reason it went through the Preliminary
and Final the second time because this had all gone through the first time. This wasn't the first
time it went through, okay. So, the second time it went through, once again, there was never any
question about lot size. The only question was, that there was a filing error. It was never filed
with the County Clerk within a 60 day period. So, it came back for the 36 lot subdivision, as it was,
with no changes whatsoever. That's the same map that was put before the Zoning Board, with all the
lot sizes and everything on it. The only difference between this map and the original map is this
one says re-approved. Other than that, there's no differences on the designs.
MR. MARTIN-All right, and when you first went through the Planning Board process, and you had the three
steps, in your first step, the first map that was presented, was that for a 32 lot and then it bumped
up to a 36? Your original map that you submitted, was that 32 lots?
MR. MCDONALD-Thirty six.
MR. CARTIER-That could be a typo.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Do you have the maps?
MR. MCDONALD-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-He actually has the maps.
MR. MCDONALD-Well, I have the final, before, it doesn't have this stamp. It's the same map, without
the second stamp. That's the original stamp in '81, '82, and it was re-approved, the same thing again.
There was no changes ever intended on this map. We had no intentions of 20,000 square foot, and no
reason to apply for it.
MRS. TARANA-This is May '81, is, again, 32.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but the map as stamped, in '81, shows 36 lots.
MR. CARTIER-What happened, I think, is everybody heard 20,000, nobody took a look at the numbers and
looked at the lots.
21
-------
-../
MR. MCDONALD-Nobody heard 20,000. There was never 20,000 square foot mentioned at the Zoning Board
meeting. I was there. We applied for the area variance for 36 lots, just like the paper said. He
had an article in the paper, here, for 36 lots, which Mr. Roberts.
MR. CARTIER-You're saying that, nowhere does it make reference to 20,000 foot lots?
MR. O'CONNOR-The only place it does is on the application, and on the notice that went out that the
applicant didn't pay attention to.
MR. CARTIER-Are you talking about the application to the Zoning Board, correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Is that Application No. 846?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-That, well, I'm looking at the, and I'm reading, this is certainly subject to debate, but
the direction I'm going, here, is, Resolved that the Queensbury Zoning Board approves Variance No.
846. That's what they approved.
MR. O'CONNOR-But the application included the map that showed 36 lots.
MR. CARTIER-But you're also telling me that Application Number 846 stated 20,000 square foot lots,
correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-I believe it did.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. MCDONALD-What the Town Planning Board was asking for and submitted to the Zoning Board was approval
for the 36 lot subdivision, and I think, I mean, it's just like an you people sitting here. I'm sure
if I brought a map in to you with 36 lots on it, and you told me to take it to the Zoning Board, and
I got it approved through the Zoning Board, then I brought it back to you people, I'm sure you aren't
going to sign that same map and re-approve it.
MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman, Mr. Turner had an opportunity to review the file, and I believe he wants to
make a statement that will be helpful to the Board.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. Do you have anything?
TED TURNER
MR. TURNER-Ted Turner, Chairman of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. On this particular
application, Mr. Buckley did represent the application, and the map as presented is the map that we
approved, and I can tell you myself that I am aware that there was 14,000 square foot lots up there,
and as indicated on the map the various sized lots, and that's what we approved, exactly.
MR. MARTIN-What, again, is the language of Variance No. 846?
MR. DUSEK-The language is, the Board approved this variance. Practical difficulty due to zoning change.
MR. CARTIER-What did you just read from, July 20 '83?
MR. DUSEK-July 20 '83, yes, request, it says, we have reviewed the request for variance and have the
following recommendations. Approve, resolved, the Board approved the variance. Practical difficulty
due to zoning change.
MR. CARTIER-I'm not reading the same thing you are.
MR. DUSEK-Who has the zoning file? Maybe we should go right to the file to make sure we have the right
paper.
MR. CARTIER-I'm looking at something that says, Page 7, Zoning Board, July 20. 1983.
MRS. PULVER-Here it is, right here, right on the front page, right here. It says, Resolved, the
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. CARTIER-I agree. That's what I'm saying. What Paul is reading doesn't.
MRS. PULVER-That's what he just read, as practical difficulty for the request.
22
"'--"
--
MR. O'CONNOR-He was reading Planning Board.
MR. CARTIER-This says Zoning Board on top.
MR. MARTIN-So, what I'm trying to get at, though, is 846 made no reference to 20,000 square feet.
It just said.
MR. DUSEK-Not in the motion of the variance, no.
MRS. PULVER-No.
MR. LAURICELLA-I think this is a legal question that we shouldn't even be doing this.
MR. MARTIN-Well, if there's an issue, eventually, we're going to have an involvement, but I don't know,
based on what I'm hearing tonight, that there is, in fact, an issue.
MR. DUSEK-My reaction is, we've heard a lot of statements, here, made tonight, some of which I know
that I wasn't aware of. In fact, I indicated to Mike, today, that one of the things I had been under
the assumption is that it was 20,081. In reality, it was 12,000. I cleared that up with Pat, today.
All of these types of facts have a bearing as to what's going to happen, here, in the end, in terms
of, what the strongest case is, as far as what the Zoning Board did. I, personally, would like to
have a chance to review this, and give it some thought. I certainly don't want to shoot from the hip,
tonight, and make a decision or make a recommendation for you that will compound the problem.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I would beg to differ. Again, I'm not sure why the applicant is being even
put through this process, at this point. I'm very surprised and happy that Mr. Turner is here. He
tells you exactly what they approved. The only issue that I understood is what was approved by, the
Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance for lots less than 20,000 square feet, because those were
the ones at issue. I don't know what any delay is going to provide, by way of other research or
testimony.
MR. DUSEK-I think, as I've indicated, I'm concerned because this thing has been round and round, and
I don't want to make a rash, give a rash opinion tonight to.
MR. O'CONNOR-This man built a $100,000 road, after the last time it was around in this Town.
MR. DUSEK-And at that point a decision was made to make a filing that was never made, and that's.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, no. I do not have a resolution showing that decision.
MR. DUSEK-That's the Zoning Administrator's decision, which she had a right to make, as an independent
officer of the Town.
MR. CARTIER-Can I jump in here? We obviously have a difference of opinion, in legal terms, and I don't
know that this Board is going to be able to do anything to resolve that difference of opinion. I think
that's between the attorneys, here. I really don't know, personally, what this Board can do, at this
point.
MRS. PULVER-Well, they want to get building permits, obviously, right, to build on these lots?
MR. MARTIN-And the issue is, you still, what do you have on file at the County, now? Do you have this?
MR. O'CONNOR-This map.
MR. MARTIN-This map is on file?
MR. MCDONALD-Yes, sir.
MR. DUSEK-There's actually two agencies, if you will, that have to make a decision, here. One is the
Zoning Administrator has to come to grips with the decision she previously made, in terms of saying
that she would reject any applications for building permits for under 20,000, because that's a decision
process that she has the right to make that decision, and if there's an appeal from that, they can
go to the Zoning Board on it. You, as a Planning Board, have jurisdiction over all planning plats
and subdivision plats that have been filed in the County, and they're. basically, yours, so to speak,
and you have the right to leave them there or take them back, under proper circumstances, and that's
your decision that you have to make. Mine, as far as your attorney goes, is to give you some legal
advice to help you through the decision process. I can't make the decision for you, but I can certainly
give you legal advice, and as I've indicated, I think that this has been round, and I just don't think
it would be appropriate to make a hasty, give a hasty decision tonight, and then maybe the thing come
up again later. I'd like to be able to think about it, consider things. I certainly have learned
additional information, myself, tonight, that I wasn't previously privy to. I'm sure Pat has heard
some additional information she may not have.
23
~
~'
MR. ~RTIN-Yes. I think, that seems to me like that's the important, it's just as important for her
as well that she's heard what she's heard. I think she made the correct decision, based on the
information she had at the time, but I think some new things have come to 1ight, here, and maybe this'11
finally wash itseH out, but what I wou1d propose, then, is that we as a Board, you a1ready have this
on fi1e with the County, that we simp1y take no action. That 1eaves it on fi1e with the County. That'11
allow you time to investigate as you see fit, for Pat to reeva1uate her determination, and we don't
need to do anything, and you can get back to us, at a future date. If something new does come to 1ight
that we have to make a decision, or do something with this, then we win, but I don't see anything,
at this point, that warrants that.
MR. CARTIER-Yes. The on1y other thing that pops into my head is that we have, I think, a question
of interpretation, here, again, and whenever I think of interpretation, I immediate1y think of the
Zoning Board, and maybe that's the proper venue for this thing. I'm not sure, to go back and c1arify
whatever decision was made at the Zoning Board.
MR. ~RTIN-And that'11 get this issue c1eaned up once and for a11, and you can go on with your bui1ding
permits and a11 that.
MR. O'CONNOR-We think it's a1ready c1eaned up. We have a subdivision map fi1ed, and we wi11 do batt1e
with the Zoning Department when it comes time, somebody wants a bui1ding permit on one of those 10ts
that is not of 20,000. We have not had somebody who wants a bui1ding permit yet.
MR. CARTIER-But somehow, in a11 of this, before you start se11ing 10ts, it wou1d seem to me the deve10per
wou1d want c1ear, unencumbered, no 1iens, tit1e to these 10ts.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think we have that, Mr. Cartier.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, but there is some disagreement that you, in fact, have that, and how do we res01ve
that disagreement. We don't res01ve it by having you say, we think we have it.
MR. O'CONNOR-On1y your res01ution of March 24th created that c10ud.
MR. MARTIN-No. That wasn't the on1y c10ud. She was not going to grant you a bui1ding permit, but
I think this process, I don't think, has been a futi1e process. If anything, it's brought information
to 1ight for the Zoning Administrator for her, now, to make an informed decision, which she didn't
have before.
MR. DUSEK-Wen, I've got to say, though, I don't know that there's a reason to make a rush judgement
tonight. It happens a11 the time that agencies, courts, etc., are asked to make decisions. They don't
necessari1y make them on the spot, and I think it wou1d be just my advice to the Town, at this point,
that it wou1dn't hurt to even take a week just to take a 100k at it and make sure that you made the
right decision.
MR. CARTIER-Frank1y, I don't even think a motion's necessary from this Board, okay.
MR. ~RTIN-No.
MR. CARTIER-This has been, to me, an information gathering.
MR. MARTIN-I want to take that one step further in that, no judgement or decision is needed and there
may never be.
MR. O'CONNOR-I wou1d 1ike a decision, though, from this Board, because you have caned into question
the prior approva1.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Whether or not you're going to do something. I think you've raised a c10ud, and it has
to be res01ved.
MR. CARTIER-It doesn't have to be res01ved tonight.
MR. O'CONNOR-I wou1d ask that you just put it on the agenda, that we know what it is.
MR. DUSEK-I wou1d agree with Mr. O'Connor that I think that the Board, uHimate1y, shou1d give some
indication, in terms of a motion or res01ution, that it's going to do, or not going to do something,
because that is, it has been brought up, and I think he's right. I think he I s right. I think, just
to put the thing to bed, once and for a11, the Board shou1d, at some point, when the right time comes,
entertain a motion one way or the other.
MR. LAPOINT-Does anybody have our March 24th motion right handy, that they can read it to us? What
did we do to create a11 this?
24
-----
-
MR. CARTIER-I think we just voted to rehear it.
MR. LAPOINT-I want to hear the language.
MR. DUSEK-I have a copy of it. If you'd like, I can read it into the record for you.
MR. LAPOINT-Please.
MR. DUSEK-It says, "WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the Planning Board for the Town of
Queensbury that a subdivision map, previously approved by the Planning Board during 1981 and again
on August 3, 1983 and titled 'Map of Southern Exposure - A Subdivision of Lands of Robert E. McDonald,',
contains a number of lots which are less than 20,000 square feet in size, and WHEREAS, the Planning
Board also notes that the 1983 approval of the aforesaid subdivision was apparently issued by the
Planning Board, at a time when the zoning ordinance then in effect apparently required lots of 30,000
square feet, and after a variance was granted upon request for allowance of lots in area of 20,000
square feet, and WHEREAS, from the best available information it would appear that Robert E. McDonald
either still owns or controls the aforesaid subdivision, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board feels that this matter should be reviewed with Mr. McDonald and any other owners thereof, and
appropriate action or non action considered, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Board of
the Town of Queensbury hereby directs that the Planning Department provide notice to Mr. McDonald that
the Board will consider the matter of the Planning Board approval of the Southern Exposure subdivision
at the meeting of April 21st, 1992 at approximately 7 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the Planning Board
may get to this matter on its agenda, and consider taking any action that may be appropriate at that
time including, but not limited to, no action, making recommendations, or rescinding the subdivision
approval."
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, the operative thing, here, is the three no action, rescinding, or approving.
Anybody here object to this? I guess I just want to know if there's going to be opposition to this.
MR. CARTIER-To what?
MR. LAPOINT-To these lots, as configured.
MR. MARTIN-No. I don't think this was a public hearing.
MR. LAPOINT-No, but I'd still like to know.
MR. CARTIER-Well, it wasn't publicly noticed.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-Nobody's here for this, the parties of interest.
MR. MCDONALD-This has been going on for a long time. I think it's way to long. We've been raked over
the coals many times more than we should have been with this thing. We've done everything that the
Town has asked us to do in this subdivision. It set for a long time, from 1983, until 1989, the last
part of '89, before any of this came up again. We went through it, again, with the Town Board. Now,
we're back here again. I can't understand why, I mean, other than this one thing. There was a mistake
made was 20,000 square foot put in on the paper that should have never been there, and was never
mentioned at the Zoning Board. Mr. Turner himself told you that. The whole thing went back with the
recommendation of the Planning Board, a group of people just like yourself, to the Zoning Board, to
be approved as it was, and it was, and it went right back through the full approval process, Preliminary
approval and Final approval, all at the same time, right back again then it was finalized, and at that
time, we figured we were through it again, and now we're right back here again. I don't want to keep
coming back to you.
MR. MARTIN-Speaking for me, personally, I don't see where we have any relevance to this issue at all.
If anything, there maybe a request from the Zoning Administrator to the Zoning Board of Appeals for
a clarification as to what they granted, in terms of a variance. Other than that, I don't see where
we have any.
MR. LAPOINT-That's clear, though.
MR. MCDONALD-I think we have a clarification with the Zoning Board.
MR. MARTIN-Well, she's the one who's made the determination, so she obviously has got a clarification
to be made.
MRS. PULVER-Yes, but I think now she has new information, and it falls on her shoulders.
25
--
~
MR. LAPOINT-Can we validate what the original Planning Board had accepted and the Zoning Board,
subsequently, looked at and approved? I mean, wouldn't that finalize our part in this whole thing,
and then it's left up to the Zoning Administrator?
MR. DUSEK-That is an option.
MR. LAPOINT-I mean, I want to be done with it, because we just spent an hour on this.
MRS. PULVER-Well, one of the decisions is, do you believe that the Planning Board originally, when
they gave approval, gave approval to this map.
MR. LAPOINT-Absolutely.
MRS. PULVER-I do, too.
MR. LAPOINT-And I think that we could at least validate that portion, and then it goes to the Zoning
Administrator for her next interpretation, when it comes to building permit.
MR. MARTIN-I believe, based on what we've heard tonight, that was the view of everybody, that they
were approving this map. Ted said that, right on the record.
MRS. PULVER-Well, if that's the case, if we make a motion, and say, we approve this map, that was
previously approved, doesn't that solve it?
MR. CARTIER-There's some very tangled legal issues, here, and I don't even know what they are, okay,
and we've got a Town Attorney sitting here saying, wait a minute, we're not ready to go forward with
this thing. We need another look. I'm going to pay very close attention to what the Town Attorney
is saying, here, because he's the one who's going to be tangled up in this, much more than the Planning
Board is.
MR. MARTIN-That's why I'm saying, simply, no action. He's got a plat on file with the County. It's
going to come to her doorstep, the Zoning Administrator, at building permit time. I just say, no action.
MR. LAPOINT-Fine, absolutely it doesn't come back to us ever again. I don't want to put the applicant
through this.
MR. MARTIN-Right, and that leaves the door open for Paul to research this further, if he feels it
appropriate, and he can always come back to us at a future date.
MR. LAPOINT-Well, I don't want the applicant to come back to us at a future date.
MR. MARTIN-Right, that's why I'm saying, no action.
MR. LAPOINT-Well, I don't think he should have to, period, regardless of what our attorney finds out.
MR. CARTIER-I agree.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. LaPoint, are you saying that your feeling is that there will be no action by this
Board, after hearing the information that you heard tonight?
MR. LAPOINT-Either no action, or we validate the previous one.
MR. MARTIN-No, no. I would just say, no action. There's not even a necessity for that.
MR. O'CONNOR-I honestly don't think you can validate the action without going through the whole public
hearing process and I don't want to become involved with that at the expense of Mr. McDonald.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Then we go no action, then.
MR. DUSEK-Yes. I don't think there's any need to get into that aspect of it, in any event, no matter
what. I don't think you have to go through a public hearing and review a subdivision. I think that
what the Board, ultimately, has to decide is, really, the issue before you is, should the plat stay
filed at Warren County, and if you feel it should, then you should entertain a motion, and you should
also, if you feel you're ready to tonight, if I understand what you're saying, you're saying that it
should stay filed, and that based upon what you've heard, you don't see any reason to issue any orders
to remove it, and that you ought to say that, in terms of a resolution, I think, if that's your decision.
MR. LAPOINT-Is that the no decision?
MR. CARTIER-No, that's not a no decision.
MRS. PULVER-Yes, it is. That's, leave it as is. That's a no decision, yes.
26
'--
~
MR. LAPOINT-Leave it as filed, and that essentially validates what's previously been done, that we
leave that on file.
MR. CARTIER-Do we want to do that?
MR. LAPOINT-Whatever it does, not to come back in front of us, to get this guy on to what he can do,
to resolve this with the Zoning Administrator.
MR. DUSEK-My recommendation to you earlier was, even if you take a week to think about it. You don't
have to bring the applicant back, even, but just to think about it, and then a resolution, at that
point, can be entertained.
MR. O'CONNOR-The applicant isn't going to have it discussed if he isn't here.
MR. DUSEK-Fair enough.
MR. MARTIN-Lets get this off the dime, here.
IIJTION ON SUBDIVISION NO. 4-83 SOOTIERfI EXPOSURE, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
That the plat on file at the County Clerk's Office is enforced and that the Board take no action.
Duly adopted this 21st day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Martin
NOES: Mr. Cartier
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer (9:10 p.m.)
BREAK
MRS. YORK-We've had a request that Azure Park be substituted with Herald Square, Azure Park, Mr. Harris'
subdivision. Could that be next?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE AZURE PARK CllNER: H. RUSSELL HARRIS JENKINSVILLE, AZURE
DRIVE/FROM ~ICER ROAD GO NORTH ON RIDGE ROAD TO JENKINSVILLE ROAD, SOUTH TO RAINBCII TRAIL, LEFT TO
FAR END OF RAINBCII TRAIL. FOR A 13 LOT SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIIENCES. TAX MAP
NO. 52-1-11 LOT SIZE: 1:18.54 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGUlATIONS
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:18 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdiv. #3-1992, H. Russell Harris Azure Park, April 3, 1992,
Meeting Date: April 21, 1992 "The applicant is requesting to construct 13 lots on existing roadways.
The Planning Board reviewed this in January at the request of the Zoning Board of Appeals. On January
22nd the applicant received a variance for lot size on two lots (#13 & #12). On lot fill, septic and
wells are proposed. All roadways exist. The limits on clearing have been established where there
are treed lots. Lot Number 10 is 7.63 acres and has portions which are undevelopable. The subdivision
is well laid out and conforms to the ordinance. There are no planning issues which remain unresolved.
A long form EAF is available for the Board's review. If all engineering issues can be resolved, the
staff recommends approval."
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, April 16, 1992 "We have reviewed the project
and have the following engineering comments: 1. Existing topography extending at least one-hundred
(100) feet off-site should be shown (AI83-9.A. (2». 2. The locations of existing wells and septic
systems on all adjacent properties should be shown to verify required separation distances
(AI83-9.A. (3». 3. The location map should be completed to indicate all property owner's within 500
feet of the subdivision (A-183-9.A. (4)(b». 4. The drawings should be sealed by a licensed Engineer
or Land Surveyor (AI83-9.A.9). 5. A note should be added to the plan requiring sediment and erosion
control measures be installed as necessary during construction in accordance with the New York State
Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control (AI83-9.F.(3». 6. Appropriate erosion control
details should be specified on the drawings (AI83-9.F.(4». 7. With regard to storm drainage: a.
An appropriate drainage easement should be provided for the discharge from the existing 18" culvert
onto lot 7 and across other downstream lots. Measures for safe conveyance of stormwater across these
27
--
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin
NOES: Mr. Cartier (8:11 p.m.)
OLD IIJSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-83 SR-lA SOUTHERN EXPOSURE mirtER: ROBERT MCDONALD SHERMAN ISlAND ROAD I CORINTH
ROAD TO REEVALUATE A FINAL PLAT WITH REGARD TO A VARIANCE FOR 20,000 SQ. FT. LDTS GRANTED IN 1983.
TAX MAP NO. 150-1-6.1 (NOlI DIVIDED lITO 36 LOTS) SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGUlATIONS
TIMOTHY BREWER WAS NOT PRESENT AT THIS DISCUSSION.
MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:11 p.m.)
MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman, perhaps it might be helpful if I give some introduction on this?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I was going to have you lead us into this, here.
MR. DUSEK-The Board adopted a resolution at its March 24th meeting, which summarized, generally, what
the situation is, but I'll just try to capsulize it, here. The Board is considering a subdivision
plan that was approved by the Planning Board in 1983, and it was filed at Warren County. The reason
why it has been brought back to your consideration is that it was brought to our attention, that of
the Zoning Administrator's. I beHeve it was brought to the Town Board's attention, at one point,
that there were a number of lots under 20,000 square feet in this particular subdivision. That normally
wouldn't mean anything except for the fact that in 1983, when the subdivision was approved, the required
lot size was 30,000 square feet, and if you go back to the Zoning Board minutes of the variance that
was granted for this particular subdivision, it would at least initially appear that the Zoning Board
granted approval for 20,000 square foot lots, so, therefore, anything under that size doesn't seem
to quite mesh with the approvals. So, it's back before you to consider what to do about it. Now,
you have a lot of choices. After you hear everything, you have the choices of doing nothing. You
have the choices of considering revisions to the map, requesting that the map be removed, or withdrawn
from the filings. There's any number of possible solutions or choices that you have, and at this point,
I'm not recommending anything to you, because I think 12.!! have to listen to the entire story from all
of the parties so that you can reach a conclusion. Just to give you a brief history, a kind of
chronology, so that you can follow what, at least as far as 1 can find from the records, that happened
here, this particular subdivision started in 1981. In 1981, there was a Zoning Ordinance in effect
in the Town of Queensbury which allowed 12,000 square foot lots in that area. The developer went through
the process, got the necessary approvals, and then a map was not filed. When the map was not filed,
the developer lost the rights to develop the subdivision in accordance with the approval received from
the Planning Board. Then, the Zoning Ordinance changed in 1982. The new Zoning Ordinance came into
effect and required 30,000 square foot lots for that same area. Therefore, when the developer wanted
to go back to the Planning Board to get another approval, since the other one had lapsed, he no longer
could get approval for the exact map he had filed, but rather he would have to go for 30,000 square
foot lots, unless, of course, he got a variance, and that's what he did. He went to the Zoning Board,
made application, and got a variance. It's important to understand what happened before the Zoning
Board. The record shows that an application was filed with the Zoning Board requesting 20,000 square
foot lots. The record also shows that a Notice of Public Hearing was sent out by the Zoning Board,
or on behalf of the Zoning Board, indicating that a variance was requested to 20,000 square foot lots.
At the meeting of the Zoning Board, from talking with various people, including Michael O'Connor, it
appears that a map, the map that you see up there now, showing the less than 20,000 square foot lots,
was in fact presented to the Zoning Board and they considered that. Their motion that they made, after
they considered the map, the request, hearing from the applicant, indicated that they simply approved
the variance, did not indicate square footage.
MR. MARTIN-You mean they actually had this exact same map in front of them that night?
MR. DUSEK-That's my understanding from conversations, I have had with Pat, and I believe at one point
Ted Turner might have confirmed this as well, that they did have this map before them as well.
MRS. PULVER-They approved a variance for 20,000 square feet, though?
MR. DUSEK-Well, their approval doesn't say that. Their approval just simply says the variance is
granted.
MR. CARTIER-Well, can I ask a question, then, because I'm looking at what you're referring to. It
says, resolved, Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals approves Variance Number 846. Does Variance Number
846 request approval for 20,000 foot lots?
MR. DUSEK-The application does request 20,000 square feet.
15
----
,---,'
lots should be demonstrated. b. Calculations for the 10 year storm event should be provided for sizing
the proposed drainage swales which wi11 convey discharges from the two (2) existing 18" culverts along
Azure Drive. c. Details of the proposed drainage swales should be provided. d. The proposed drainage
easements should be sized to contain the 10-year flow. e. The limits of the 100-year floodplain along
the eastern portion of lot 10 should be shown per the FEMA Floodplain Maps (FIRM Panel Number 360879
0020B). 8. With regard to sewage disposal: a. The plans should note that test pits and percolation
tests needed to be conducted to design disposal systems for lots 10 and 13. b. The soi1s data should
indicate date of soi1 testing, the individual performing the tests and determination of seasonal high
groundwater. The Town of Queensbury Sanitary Sewage Ordinance requires that all high groundwater tests
be taken between March, AprH, Mayor June within 6 weeks of the time that frost leaves the ground.
If this procedure is not fo11owed, the seasonal high groundwater level may only be determined by an
individual certified by the local Board of Hea1th. c. Subsurface sewage disposal system type names
should conform to NYSDOH standards (i.e. absorption trench, sha110w absorption trench and raised).
d. The "Standard Disposal System" (absorption trench) detan should be revised to address the fo11owing:
1) Fill above the barrier material over the lateral is indicated with a stone symbol but labe11ed
earth. 2) Minimum crushed stone size of 3/4". 3) Minimum separation to seasonal high groundwater
elevation is 24". 4) Bui1ding paper, if used as barrier material over the stone around laterals,
should be specified as untreated. Geotexti1e material should also be indicated. e. The "Fnl and
Sha110w Trench System" detail (raised system and sha110w absorption trench system) should be revised
to address the following: 1) The sha110w absorption trench bottom shall not be above the existing
ground. 2) For raised systems, the fill material note should specify a percolation rate of between
5 and 30 minutes, and a minimum of 2' of fill between existing ground and the bottom of trenches unless
dosing or pressure distribution is provided. Horizontal separations must be stipulated from the edge
of the fi11 material. 3) For shallow absorption trench systems fi1l material should match the
percolation rate of the underlying existing soi1. 4) For raised systems the fi1l surface should
indicate grading to enhance drainage with a six inch layer of topsoi1 and the entire fill area seeded.
5) Note 3 is not clear. 6) Separate detai1s for shallow absorption trench and raised systems may
be appropriate to properly define aspects of construction for the two types of systems. f. If pumping
to accommodate site grades is necessary to suit use of raised systems on lots 8 through 11, it should
be addressed on the plans."
(END OF FIRST DISK)
28
"----'
--
MR. NACE-Okay. I guess they're all engineering. So, I guess they're all mine. I guess there are
a couple of areas. We tried, where it was critical, to get at close to 100 feet off-site with topo,
but there are some areas in here, uphill from the proposed subdivision, that we will fill in additional
topo for.
MR. YARMOWICH-To the north is all upgradient?
MR. NACE-To the north is all upgradient.
MR. YARMOWICH-So, there won't be any off-site impacts?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. YARMOWICH-Then I think we can preclude using that information for any real reason.
MR. NACE-Okay. We tried, here, adjacent to and downslope, we tried to provide information on the septic
system, house locations, etc., where they would be impacted, but up above we did not. There's an
existing subdivision there that has a filed map, so we can add some detail fairly readily. Where we
think it's needed, we will. I guess that also addresses Number Two. The location map, we will correct
that. There is one section to the south where we listed the.
LEON STEVES
MR. STEVES-I'm Leon Steves, for the record. Apparently, two or three parcels whose name we left off
the list, and one of them is the Town of Queensbury. The park's right here, parcel 29 and 30, and
parcel 9.3.
MR. CARTIER-They've been notified, though? They've been publicly noticed? Are you saying, the Town
of Queensbury we don't have a problem with, obviously, but.
MR. STEVES-I hear that, but I send out notifications according to this map. So, if they're not on
the map, I did not notify them.
MR. CARTIER-Are those people here?
LADY IN THE AUDIENCE-Yes, we are here. There are quite a few people, new houses, in the last year.
MR. CARTIER-Well, what we're talking about is within 500 feet. These have to be publicly noticed.
MR. MARTIN-Leon, you're saying you missed a couple?
MR. STEVES-Apparently, I did.
MR. MARTIN-Besides the Town.
MR. STEVES-Yes, I did. Tom has pointed out parcel 9.3, up here, that subdivision. Parcel 9.3 was
four lots.
MR. CARTIER-And they have not been notified?
MR. STEVES-I don't believe they've been notified. It's not on this list, here. So, I don't think
they've been notified.
MR. CARTIER-We're at Preliminary, public hearing and all that kind of stuff.
MRS. PULVER-Yes, but 9.3 is owned by the Town.
MR. MARTIN-No, it's not.
MR. STEVES-No.
MRS. PULVER-It's not?
MR. STEVES-The Town parcel's across the road.
MRS. PULVER-All but 9.3. Okay.
MR. CARTIER-Well, we're dead in our tracks, aren't we, unfortunately?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. We have to have that.
MR. NACE-Can we hold the public hearing open, in notifying for the next meeting?
29
--
MR. MARTIN-We can do that, yes.
MR. NACE-Do we have to notify everybody for the next meeting, or just?
MR. MARTIN-Lee, would we have to notify everybody, or just those people who weren't notified?
MRS. YORK-Wen, what it says here is the subdivider shan provide proof of service of notification
by certified mai1 on those land owners required to receive notice, pursuant to this other section,
and it's everyone within 500 feet.
MRS. PULVER-So, you wouldn't have to re-notice them.
MRS. YORK-No. I wouldn't think, if you kept the public hearing open, you could hear the public.
MR. MARTIN-So, it would be just to those people that they missed this first time through.
MRS. YORK-Right.
MR. CARTIER-So, we could take public comment, tonight, from the people who are here.
MR. MARTIN-Right. We can take public comment from those who are here.
LADY IN THE AUDIENCE-What about the people who have been notified, that don't come tonight, and don't
know when it's going to be reheard?
MRS. YORK-Well, if they didn't come tonight, then they obviously aren't interested.
LADY IN THE AUDIENCE-Unless they have to work or something.
MRS. YORK-Wen, then maybe the people in the neighborhood could certainly ten them that the pub1ic
hearing will remain open.
MR. MARTIN-See, it's not a new hearing. It's just a continuation of the one that was noticed.
MR. CARTIER-Can we set a date tonight, as to when we're going to rehear this thing, and these people
here can let neighbors know, and so on?
MRS. YORK-Sure.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes, I think they should just do it an again, because, I mean, we made the mistake, why
compound it and make another mistake?
MRS. PULVER-Well, there may be people here, tonight, though, that cannot come back again.
MR. MARTIN-Well, we'll here these comments, but he's saying, the re-notice of everybody.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes, we'll here the comments, but, I mean, re-notify everybody.
MRS. YORK-Okay. That's the obligation of the subdivider.
MR. MARTIN-Is that a problem?
MR. LAPOINT-We just don't want to miss anybody. I mean, we miss somebody tonight, and it's going to
be a problem.
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. CARTIER-Mr. Steves, I'n give you points for bringing that to our attention. You're, apparently,
the only one who knew that. Thank you. Well, maybe we can finish with engineering.
MR. NACE-Okay. So, we'n continue with the public hearing, continue with this review. Okay. The
finals drawings wi1l be signed and sealed as required. Pre1iminary drawings do not have to be signed
and sealed. The erosion and sediment control, Tom, I'm unclear. Are you talking about for the
construction on the lots? Because we're not constructing any facilities, other than making that.
MR. YARMOWICH-It should be a general note, applicable to all the development, is the feeling.
MR. NACE-Okay. We wi1l add it. That goes for Comment Number Six, too. We'n show standard detai1s
for erosion control. The storm drainage, there are two culverts that come, as addressed. Let me preface
everything by saying that all the roads, all the drainage in this whole subdivision are existing, okay.
We're not proposing any road construction, and the only thing we're proposing to do is to, where we
30
----
think it's appropriate, to make some minor improvements to the drainage. There is an existing cu1vert
up here that out1ets. There's a 1itt1e bit of a fine channe1 where that comes down through. We're
going to provide an easement to the Town there, and improve that channe1 a 1itt1e bit, okay, just by
making a more defined ditch 1ine. There's another cu1vert over here that rea11y does not have, there's
a house right in here, now, existing, and where this out1ets, there is rea11y no defined drainage that
comes through here. Right now, the grade around that cu1vert, existing grade, is above the top of
the cu1vert. So, it sort of sits in a wh01e a10ng the edge of the road, and rea11y doesn't do anything.
I can discuss that with Tom and maybe go 100k at it in the fie1d, and we'H do whatever he fee1s
appropriate, but since there is no defined drainage down through here, I had not anticipated doing
anything with it. Again, since we're not making any road improvements, I reaHy had not anticipated
doing any drainage ca1cu1ations to verify what's a1ready there, what is a1ready a Town faci1ity. That
goes for Comment D, and for Comment E, there is, I guess, a1though I haven't seen the f100dp1ain map
yet, I guess what Tom's saying is there's a sma11 piece of 100 year f100dp1ain down here, but there's
a1so a very steep bank, so that, it's reaHy not very weH defined on the f100dp1ain map where that
comes, but we have a 20 foot bank in here, and none of our proposed deve10pment comes even c10se to
the top of that bank, so I think it wou1d be meaning1ess to try and define something that's very
inaccurate1y shown on the f100dp1ain map. Sewage disposa1, we wi11 make a note to provide site specific
perc tests for Lots 10 and 13. The son data tests were performed by Char1es Main. We wiH add a
note to that effect. He is approved by the Town to do it, regard1ess of the time of year. Addressing
Items C and D, we wi11 change our standard detans to conform with part and parce1 of the Code, and
separate the two different types of systems, as suggested in E, and I think that carries down through
aH of E, and F, I wiH add, there are maybe one or two 10ts that might, depending on how the 10ts
deve10p, require pumping and I'll add detai1s to take care of that.
MR. CARTIER-Just a quick question. If you're coming back for another Pre1iminary, are you ta1king
about.
MR. NACE-Who said we were coming back for another Pre1iminary?
MR. CARTIER-For a continuation of this. We can't approve everything tonight. We can't approve
Pre1 imi nary.
MR. NACE-You can't?
MR. CARTIER-No, because of 1ack of pub1ic notice. We can't take action on this thing.
MR. NACE-That's right.
MR. CARTIER-So, my question is, are you going to fi1e a revised Pre1im that ref1ects aH of these,
or do you want to stay with this, or what?
MR. NACE-Let me ask this. Since they're a11 engineering comments, if we can fi1e a revised Pre1iminary,
cou1d we a1so fi1e with that a Fina1, for consideration at the same?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. We haven't taken pub1ic comments, yet, and we're going to 1eave it open through the
next meeting, which wi11 put you into May because of the time frame associated with the pub1ic notice.
MR. NACE-Right. So, we're in May, but what I'm saying is, for May's agendas, can I submit both
Pre1iminary and Fina1?
MR. CARTIER-For two different meetings, you mean?
MR. NACE-For two different meetings, and take the gamb1e, on our part.
MR. BREWER-That you're going to get Pre1iminary.
MR. MARTIN-That's what it wou1d be. I wou1d think it wou1d be a situation where maybe we cou1d do
the Pre1iminary on the first regu1ar meeting and the Fina1 on the next. It's a gamb1e on their part.
MRS. YORK-It's a gamb1e on your part.
MR. NACE-It's our gamb1e.
MR. MARTIN-But I think you've got a comprehensive 1ist, here, now. So, you shou1d minimize your risk,
there. I wou1d have no prob1em with that, as 10ng as we meet our, because it's going to be 1eft open
through the next meeting in May. AH right. Okay. We've heard from the app1icant. I'H open the
pub1ic hearing on this. Is there anyone from the pub1ic who wishes to address the Board at this time.
Just, again, to remind you. We wi11 1eave this open through the first meeting in May.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
FRANK LAVITORE
31
~
MR. LAVITORE-Frank Lavitore, Jenkinsville Road. I have no idea where this development's going in.
I'd like to see where it is.
MR. MARTIN-We can hand a map out in the audience.
MR. NACE-Okay. Jenkinsville Road is here, okay.
MR. CARTIER-That's heading north, right?
MR. NACE-This is heading, north is up the sheet. The landfill sits up in here. The Town park is right
here. This is Jenkinsville. Here's the existing Rainbow Trail comes around here, the back part of
it, and Mud Pond Road comes across, and Azure Drive.
MR. MARTIN-Ostensibly, it sits on the southern side of Azure Drive.
MR. MARTIN-Is there anyone else who'd like to come to the microphone, or do you want a couple of minutes
to? Okay. Is there any that, based on there review of the plans, has anything they would like to
direct to the Board?
MR. LAVITORE-I just have one more concern, and that's access in and out of the development. Right
now, there's just one road going in, and you're adding a substantial number of homes. Is there any
provision for a second outlet?
MR. NACE-Actuany, because of the configuration of the existing road, yes, there's just the one road
in to the Rainbow Trail, okay, but that's only a portion of the development. The other portion of
it, the other half of it, essence, occurs up on Azure Drive. So, on Rainbow Trail, lets see, we're
adding, we would be adding nine houses, that would access off of Rainbow Trail. Now, we don't have
any land to get out to Jenkinsville Road. They would provide that. It would be logical, yes, to use
that back to Jenkinsville.
MR. MARTIN-Is there any more comments that need to be directed to the Board, tonight, because we win
have an opportunity to address the Board next month, come back with any corrments or questions that
arise as, you're welcome to bring these plans home, distribute them around the neighborhood, and if
there's any questions that come up.
JAY MARKWELL
MRS. MARKWELL-Jay Markwell, Azure Drive. Next to me there's going to be a lot going in, which I was
told when I moved in they would never make a building lot in there because there's a water problem
there. I don't know how you're going to make a building lot. When the Town comes in and cleans that
out, the water comes down, we get flooded in our driveway.
MR. NACE-Can you show me which house you're in?
MRS. MARKWELL-Sure. I'm right here. This lot here, and now you're talking. I'm the second lot in.
I'm right here, and now this here you're going to make a building lot.
MR. NACE-Okay. The problem, right now, is that catch basin outlets in an outlet that's actually below
the existing grade. So, there's nowhere for the water to go. We're going to open up a ditch line
down through here, that will allow it to come down through.
MR. MARTIN-It probably, may, help your situation.
MR. NACE-So, it would actually help the situation.
MRS. MARKWELL-Okay, because I get flooded, now. I mean, my basements dry and everything, but I get
flooded.
MR. MARTIN-Your lawn and all that.
MRS. MARKWELL-Yes, because everything, if you're up there, you'll see. It comes right down from Mud
Pond. Everything is down gradient. My neighbor, her back yard is being eroded out.
MR. MARTIN-Well, this may help to alleviate that. I don't know if it'll.
MRS. MARKWELL-Because it's all down gradient. This is the bottom of the hill right here.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MRS. MARKWELL-Okay.
MR. NACE-Well, it continues on from there.
32
-.-
---
MRS. MARKWELL-Right.
MR. NACE-We're going to open it up so the water can go that way.
MRS. MARKWELL-Okay. They're going to have a 75 foot requirement.
MR. NACE-Actually, most of them have a couple hundred feet. This is 300. This is 200.
MRS. MARKWELL-All right, but this is only going to be 75.
MR. NACE-This one in here is about 90 feet frontage. That's just to show where it can go.
MRS. MARKWELL-Thank you.
DAN BOYNTON
MR. BOYNTON-Yes. My name's Dan Boynton and I'm on Jenkinsville, and I have one question that might
arise now or later on, but there is a little piece of land there between my property, which is 9.1,
and Number 10. It is an old right-of-way. My family's been in that property since 1944, and when
the farms were there, that was a right-of-way between the fields, on my side of the road, the field
where the ballpark is on Jenkinsville Road, now. My question is, we've been maintaining that property
all these years, and I know you've said there's no idea for the proposed road, but is there any proposal
about doing anything with that property? It's only, I measured it the other day, at a rough estimate,
I found an old metal stake and my neighbor's stake, and I'm estimated about 15 feet from there in that
right-of-way is a wetland.
MR. CARTIER-Fifteen?
MR. BOYNTON-Fifteen feet.
MR. CARTIER-It can't be a Town road.
MR. BOYNTON-That's the only thing that's, and I was just concerned with that.
MR. MARTIN-Do you know who owns that strip?
MR. BOYNTON-Mr. Harris, I believe, owns that strip now, as far as property.
MR. CARTIER-It couldn't be a Town road. There's no way it could be turned into a Town road, is what
I'm saying.
MR. MARTIN-It's too narrow.
MR. BOYNTON-Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-There might be some confusion as to who owns it, also. It may not be Mr. Harris.
MR. BOYNTON-I was wondering if it was going to be made a right-of-way for a foot path or anything like
that. See, right now I'm having problems. My house and my property is in direct line Nashua Park
to the ball park across the road, and it seems as though, and I have no problems with the kids in the
neighborhood, everybody wants to use my yard for the right-of-way. I've had desires of fencing it,
which I really don't want to do. I don't want to fence it in, but if it comes to it, I'm going to
have to. If that was made a right-of-way, that might be all right, too. I mean, I don't mind giving
it up, if it was maintained, but from my yard their right-of-way is my property.
MR. MARTIN-Right. I know that, in this project before us, there's nothing proposed for that, and like
you say, though, in reality, that may turn into like a little foot path from the neighborhood to the
park, there, and we can't do anything to alleviate that. The only thing I might suggest is that you
find out who owns that strip and maybe you try and get it conveyed to you or your neighbor.
MR. BOYNTON-Well, it was originally transferred from, the old farm, Stevensons farm back then, I believe,
when Mr. Harris bought the property, that was with the property.
MR. MARTIN-I see. Well, there's nothing proposed as part of this development.
MR. BOYNTON-That's fine. I just wanted to give the Board something else to consider.
MR. LAPOINT-Mr. Steves looks like he's going to find out exactly who owns that forest.
MR. BOYNTON-Okay. Thank you.
33
'-'
---
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions at this time, tonight? Again, I remind you, you'l1
have an opportunity again next month, due to the, we had a mishap, here, with the mai1ing. Anybody
else? Okay. There being no other cOllllíent, tonight, I'll leave the public hearing open, and we really
can't do a SEQRA unti1 we have al1'the public coment. So, I guess, if there's no more discussion
from the Board, we'll entertain a motion to table. If we can get concurrence from the applicant, that
would help.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. The only thing I can think of, Lee, are we past the deadline for May, yet, submissions
for May?
MRS. YORK-The last Wednesday of the month, two weeks.
MR. CARTIER-So, you've got two weeks left to submit.
II)UON TO TABLE PRELIIIIWY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1992 AZURE PARK, Introduced by Peter Cartier who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint:
So that applicant can address engineering concerns and plot a revised plan, also to re-notify those
people in the neighborhood who the applicant is legally required to notify.
Duly adopted this 21st day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin
NOES: NONE (9:49 p.m.)
MR. MARTIN-Okay. I think we're going to go back now.
SUBDIVISIOIf NO. 13-86 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE I SR-2O HERALD SQUARE, PHASE U OWNER:
GUIDO PASSARELLI VAl DUSEIt I WZERNE ROAD'S PHASE II - 59 LOTS TAX IMP NO. 125-1-999 LOT SIZE:
±83.13 ACRES SECTION: SUBOIVISIOIf REGULATIONS
LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:49 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdiv. #13-86, Herald Square - Phase II Guido Passarelli,
March 31, 1992, Meeting Date: April 21, 1992 "This application is being reviewed under the 1982
subdivision regulations, since the project was under review when the 1988 regulations were passed.
To make this situation even more confusing, research of the previous files and minutes revealed that
the SEQRA on the whole subdivision was done, but preliminary approval was not granted for the entire
subdivision. A condensation of the record shows:
11/18/86 - Sketch Plan approval on whole subdivision
12/16/86 - Negative Declaration on SEQRA for whole subdivision of 147 lots
1/20/87 - Preliminary approval on Phase I (46 lots)
3/17/87 - Final approval on Phase I (46 lots)
This procedure differs from what has transpired with other projects of this vintage. Usual1y we find
that sketch and preliminary are completed on the whole subdivision and final is required for each phase.
Since this situation is rather unique, the Board will be requested to review the plat for both
preliminary and final review at this meeting. This situation is perfectly legal under the 1982
ordinance. Since there is an existing negative declaration on this phase, the Boards review wi1l have
to be limited to adjustments which will not impact the SEQRA determination. This phase will consist
of 59 lots. The agent for the applicant has minimal1y modified the plat making some lot lines more
radial to the roadway. No new lots were created, this just improves the configuration. The subdivision
is served by Town water and will have on lot septic. Traffic impacts and other environmental concerns
were reviewed previously."
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Tom, you have some coments.
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, April 20, 1992 "Rist-Frost has reviewed the revised
Phase II plat dated March 17, 1992. The following engineering comments are based on the 1982 subdivision
regulations and the Town's project files from 1986 and 1987. 1. The roadway system for Phase II has
numerous curves that are less than the 300 foot minimum radius criteria for local streets. 2. The
roadway system has three reverse curves without 150 foot tangents. 3. The lot abutting VanDusen Road
should be numbered. 4. Drainage easements should be indicated for proposed storm drainage improvements
34
---
'-'
from the roads to C1endon Brook in the vicinity of 10ts 86/87 and 98/99. 5. Subsurface sewage disposa1
systems shou1d uti1ize absorption trenches. Seepage pits for subsurface sewage disposa1 shou1d not
be used. 6. The drainage system p1an (sheet 3a, dated 24 Feb. 1987 by D.L. Dickinson Associates)
indicates severa1 sections of roadway in Phase II where surface f10w a10ng the streets exceed 350 feet
before being intercepted by drywe11s."
MR. MARTIN-Mr. Steves.
MR. STEVES-In 1986 and 1987, this p1an in its entirety was a1so submitted for the Department of Hea1th's
approva1. An I have to do is wan into the Department of HeaHh and they wi11 stamp it. It's an
approved. So, I hesitate, if you wi11, to make changes that wou1d jeopardize that approva1. The fi1es
that the Town has, is the on1y thing that I have that was done at that time, and I be1ieve that we
have fo11owed, if you wi11, on1y in the footsteps of that p1an that was approved, and I don't know,
we can supp1ement it, if you wi11, any way you wish, but I wou1d be hesitant revising the p1an, to
jeopardize my Department of Hea1th approva1.
MR. MARTIN-Such as?
MR. STEVES-Re-configuration of 10ts, which wou1d be because of the roads. The roads themse1ves wou1d
make a re-configuration. I have nothing wrong with drainage. Adding drainage is a minor prob1em.
I mean, that's something between the Town and the deve10per, not the Department of Hea1th. They don't
get into that.
MRS. PULVER-So, you have a prob1em with Number One and Number Two comwents, Rist-Frost comments?
MR. STEVES-Yes, I do.
MR. LAPOINT-We have 300 foot. What are they actua11y, rough1y?
MR. STEVES-I be1ieve that, I don't have that with me, but I be1ieve that there's probab1y and area
here, for instance, of 600 feet. It's indicated there's a high spot, here, where there's f10w in both
directions.
MR. LAPOINT-We're on the radius of curves, I'm sorry. I'm sti11 on Number One. Go right through them.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Radius of curves?
MR. CARTIER-What's the minimum radius you've got?
MR. YARMOWICH-One hundred and seventeen.
MR. STEVES-This one is at, we11, you see, another thing it does, it effects Phase I. Phase I has been
approved, and as you can see, the entry road, here, has an outside radius of 204 feet.
MR. LAPOINT-Two hundred and four.
MR. STEVES-Over here, the inside radius is 244 feet. So that any other radiuses wou1d be within the
Phase.
MR. LAPOINT-Those are sti11 pretty big radiuses. Reverse tangents, 150 foot.
MR. YARMOWICH-Excuse me, Ed, the nature and extent, there is one curve that has a radius of, center
1ine radius of 117.
MR. LAPOINT-One hundred and seventeen?
MR. YARMOWICH-Correct, and others with deficiencies up to around 250.
MR. LAPOINT-So, 117's the sma11 one. Which one is that?
MR. YARMOWICH-Between Lot 70/73, in that vicinity. There's some other ones around 140.
MR. STEVES-That's correct.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
MR. YARMOWICH-As in the case with other projects that were reviewed before tonight, I make these comments
in the spirit of getting the Board as much as to what this p1an represents, in terms of what the '82
Regu1ations required, being that this Board makes the fina1 decision.
MR. LAPOINT-Again, we're ca1ibrated on 300 foot, and we'd understand that we're a third of that.
35
'-'
--.../
MR. YARMOWICH-Just to put some perspective in there, when the Town goes ahead and uti1izes this
right-of-way for insta11ation of other faci1ities, such as water and, potentia11y, sewer in the future,
the construction of these faci1ities is impacted by geometry, number of manh01es, requirements for
fittings and water mains, storm drain systems, the abi1ity to maintain, that sort of thing, and so
there is some other reason, rather than just the simp1e abi1ity to navigate on a road surface, why
the Town shou1d have standards.
MR. LAPOINT-Right.
MR. YARMOWICH- The topography has a 10t to do with, to what extent a waiver may be acceptab1e. You
shou1d, it may be difficu1t to visua1ize what a 120 foot turning radius is, but it's not too much un1ike
the outside of a standard cu1-de-sac. The outside of a standard cu1-de-sac is 75 feet, as I reca11 ,
and 117 feet wou1d be, something 1ike that.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. It's probab1y acceptab1e to traffic, but in terms of putting uti1ities in, you're
ta1king added expense.
MR. YARMOWICH-We11, it creates impacts, as we 11 , in that area. It's acceptabi1ity is different on
a case by case basis.
MRS. PULVER-Yes, but this is added expense, now, to the deve10per. Is this going to be the added expense
to the deve10per?
MR. YARMOWICH-Not if sewer construction wou1d come in at a 1ater time. In terms of water construction,
it's a1so a 10ng term responsibi1ity of the Town. There may not be objections to these kinds of
1imitations, and it may be that topography is such that there is no rea1 impact. If your curve is
at a high point, you'd drain a sewer down both directions. It doesn't matter because you never go
down the corner. I just tee1 it's appropriate that the Board be aware of these things.
MRS. PULVER-At what stage is the uti1ities in, in these Phases?
MICHAEL O'CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-I'm Michae1 O'Connor, and I'd a1so speak for the app1icant. The deve10per wi11 be putting
in the water fbr this particu1ar deve10pment.
MR. LAURICELLA-It's not in right now?
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't be1ieve it is.
MR. STEVES-No, it's not in.
MR. O'CONNOR-It wi11 be constructed as part of the road construction. It wi11 be a turn key type
operation, where it's turned over to the Town, fu11y insta11ed.
MRS. PULVER-And the roads are a1so the responsibi1ity of the deve10per, right?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-Item Two, Tangents.
MR. STEVES-We11, your ta1king about a reverse curve, here, one, two, three reverse curves.
MR. LAPOINT-Right.
MR. STEVES-I can make an attempt to meet the Code.
MR. LAPOINT-We11, I'm just trying to ca1ibrate II\Yse1f. That's why I'm asking questions on, you know,
he says, without 150. What are they, actua11y?
MR. STEVES-There's none. There's no straight of way at a11.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think they're rea11y significant in dimensiona1 size, and, a1so, what they're
trying to do is 1ine the road back up with the cuts that were a1reaqy approved fbr Phase I, because
those cuts were estab1ished when you approved 10ts 45, 44, and the corner 10ts. So, basica11y, you're
trying to get in the best radius you can on the back side of your road, and come back to a configuration
that com~1ies with what you have there. You've got to give one way or another, in order to make the
connection.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. 1'm just trying to unc'erstand what, the intent of having a 150 foct straight of way,
if you wi11.
36
"-
-
MR. YARMOWICH-We11, it's physica11y impossible for any individual, regardless of their driving ski11,
to be going in one direction of a curve on a perfect corner, perfect radius, and immediately switch
to the other. Physically, you must make a spiral movement. You can go, immediately, from one direction
to the other.
MR. LAPOINT-Right.
MR. YARMOWICH-That can't be done.
MR. LAPOINT-Right.
MR. YARMOWICH-So, for that reason, technica11y, you need a tangent, so that a driver has the time to
react. When curves are of very limited reverse curvature, that effect may not be seen at all.
MR. LAPOINT-That's exactly the point I'm trying to get at, right there. Are we below that criteria
that would make this safe?
MR. YARMOWICH-I'm not going to be able to tell you that.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay, but, I mean, 150 is the standard.
MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct.
MR. LAPOINT-And we have something here less than that.
MR. STEVES-But are we talking about super elevated curves, or are we talking about maybe multiple
marginal curves?
MR. YARMOWICH-We're talking about any speed, any curve.
stay on a perfect radial line. It's physically impossible.
You can't possibly make that maneuver and
Ed will understand.
MR. LAPOINT-I'm just trying to pick a number. If 75 is acceptable, and I'm calibrated there, and I
understand that.
MR. STEVES-As I did earlier, I'm trying to think of a road that we have put in, in the Town of
Queensbury, that's that way.
MR. YARMOWICH-Invariably, what driver reaction to that kind of situation is, is that they leave the
center line of the road and the cross over to the other side. The specific reason for having a tangent
is to avoid drivers, if you go down a windy road, drivers will cross over the center line. This may
not apply.
MR. LAPOINT-Right. What's that length, there, about 300 feet?
MR. STEVES-Three hundred feet, yes.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Item Three, lot abutting VanDusen Road should be numbered. No problem?
MR. STEVES-No problem.
MR. LAPOINT-Item Four, drainage easements should be indicated for proposed storm drainage improvements.
MR. STEVES-No problem. They're shown on the plan as a separate ownership.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. You're all set. You show pits as opposed to absorption trenches?
MR. STEVES-I don't show either. The Department has already approved a plan, and I presume that approved
both on the pl an.
MR. YARMOWICH-They did at the time. The Queensbury Ordinance now suggests that new installations have
to be in accordance with current regulations, and I think that's still applicable.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, you could, in a generic sense, you probably have approval for both, but you'd
only install absorption trenches.
MR. STEVES-It's cheaper.
MR. LAPOINT-Right. Okay. So, we could stipulate that in our motion?
MR. STEVES-Sure.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
37
'---'
---
MR. MARTIN-When did we approve Phase I with those road cuts in there like that?
MR. LAPOINT-1986?
MR. STEVES-1986, 1987.
MR. MARTIN-And was the road plan show, at the time, for Phase II, or?
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Item Six, 350 feet before we hit a drywen. You can add, you said a moment ago
you could add additional drainage, no problem.
MR. STEVES-Yes, we could add additional drainage to eliminate the excessive distance between, for sheet
flow.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay, 350 feet would be the maximum, right, Tom?
MR. YARMOWICH-That's what the 1982 standards suggest is required.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes.
MR. STEVES-Sure.
MR. BREWER-Can we
So, if we said something like 300 feet, max, you can live with that?
back up just a minute. What was the answer to Question One?
MR. LAPOINT-They had a curve on here, one third of what would be acceptable, and I think that diminishes
with the square. So, it's reanya lot less than a third, right? I mean, it's reany tight. I mean,
300 being acceptable for 1982, and they're giving you one third of it now.
MR. YARMOWICH-It's no different than what's the current regulations, the plans that you'n see that
fall under the '88 Regulations. It's the same.
MR. BREWER-So, we're just going to leave it as it is.
MR. LAPOINT-No. We're talking about it.
MR. BREWER-Well, we just went by it, and I just was curious. I maybe got lost.
MR. MARTIN-Wen, it's just that, in 1986, six road cuts were approved along that road, and the Phase
II development was shown at that time, and now you've got six road cuts in there, and how are you going
to make those roads work in there?
MR. LAURICELLA-You can make them work, but you've got to change the lot sizes.
MR. MARTIN-Or you've got to redesign the whole thing.
MR. LAURICELLA-You've got to redesign the whole thing.
MR. STEVES-Well, that's what I want to avoid. We have approval on this plan.
MR. LAURICELLA-By who?
MR. STEVES-By virtue of the 1986, 1987 Sketch, conceptual approval, and while the application also
was made for a Preliminary, and I don't know who did it, but somebody altered that Preliminary
application. They made it for just Phase I, but the normal procedure was for Preliminary on the entire
site, and then go back into a final condition after the build out of 60 percent of Phase I, Phase II,
whatever it may be, had been reached.
MR. CARTIER-But the fact of the matter is, we don't have a Preliminary approval for Phase II. You
have conceptual only, correct?
MR. STEVES-That's why we're here tonight, for Preliminary and Final.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, it's up for grabs, as far as I'm concerned.
MR. STEVES-We have conceptual approval.
MR. BREWER-Conceptual, that's just Sketch.
MR. STEVES-You can't alter what's been done.
38
---
-
MR. CARTIER-You can't alter road.
MR. STEVES-The road cuts themselves are existing. You can't alter them.
MR. CARTIER-Where are they coming off, you can't alter them?
MR. STEVES-You can't alter them. That's right.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-Why can't we alter those?
MR. STEVES-The lots are already built on.
MR. LAPOINT-The lots along that road, there are houses now?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
MRS. PULVER-Yes. Lots have been sold and the road is already in.
MR. CARTIER-No. The roads aren't in.
MRS. PULVER-In Phase I, they're in.
MR. STEVES-In Phase I, this road is in.
MR. CARTIER-These lots are sold.
MR. LAURICELLA-Leon, you can change the loop, though?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-The only thing we can change, essentially, is from this point on?
MR. STEVES-That's correct.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-That's what we're talking about.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. BREWER-There's not really much you can do, is there?
MR. STEVES-That's my dilemma.
MRS. TARANA-Can you tell me, what are these? Are these lots, too, or what? Is this his driveway?
MR. STEVES-That would be his driveway.
MRS. TARANA-It comes in from over here?
MR. STEVES-That's correct.
MRS. TARANA-There would be houses here?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MRS. TARANA-And what's that one?
MR. STEVES-That's also someone else's house.
MR. MARTIN-Tom, do you have a suggestion?
MR. YARMOWICH-Something that, if radiuses are to be changed, it would require realignment of many of
the roads. It would effect all the lot layouts in that Phase. Maybe more, maybe fewer lots would
be available, but it's a significant difference, where you have an outside loop road and use those
curb cuts to form T intersections.
39
---
"--'
MR. MARTIN-That's what I was just going to say. If we make perpendicular intersections, rather than
these tight radiuses, it may even lower your cost, too.
MR. YARMOWICH-No. There'd be more roads.
MR. MARTIN-More roads?
MR. YARMOWICH-A little bit. There'd be those two sections to connect, in between the loop.
MR. STEVES-You couldn't very well sell a corner lot to somebody and then tell them, no, he's not going
to be on the corner.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, held still be on the corner, but what Tom is saying, essentially across.
MR. STEVES-Tom's talking about running a road across.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. STEVES-So, what we're doing is adding about 800 feet of road, anyway.
MR. BREWER-How much are you taking away?
MR. STEVES-It won't add anything to it. It would make a greater thoroughfare. You're still going
to have the curve problem, here. We can address the reverse curves, here, perhaps, but the trouble
with addressing it is that you will have a tighter curve coming back into it, then.
MR. MARTIN-You have an intersection.
MR. STEVES-A T? Then where am I, I've got to do this. I have no place to do that. It should have
been discovered and discussed in '87.
MR. MARTIN-Well, it just comes down to a matter of how much weight, emphasis, do you want to place
on, essentially, the first two comments in the Rist-Frost letter.
MR. LAPOINT-Do we have to go to public hearing to get, I mean, to hear what's?
MR. MARTIN-This has been publicly noticed, I would assume.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, the public hearing will come up tonight.
MRS. PULVER-Lee, would this have gone through Staff Review, originally, too?
MRS. YORK-There was no Staff.
MRS. PULVER-In '86? Well, there was a Highway Department.
MRS. YORK-I initiated Staff Review when I got here.
MRS. PULVER-Well, did the Highway Department ever look at the roads, or?
MRS. YORK-I have no idea.
MR. STEVES-Well, there was a Planner back then, was there not, Lee? Wasn't Stu Messenger on the Board
at that time?
MRS. YORK-He might have been.
MR. STEVES-I think so.
MR. MARTIN-I think Stu might have been here, '86, '87. He was on during Fran Walter's term.
MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. When did we start the Master Plan?
MRS. YORK-'87.
MRS. PULVER-'88 is when it was approved.
MR. CARTIER-I mean, when we started working on it, not when it kicked in.
MRS. YORK-I think it was '87.
40
--
---
MR. CARTIER-'87, and Stu was gone prior to that.
MR. MARTIN-So, it would have been '86/'87.
MRS. YORK-Maybe I have something.
MR. CARTIER-It's just very frustrating, sitting here as a Planning Board, getting told we can't do
anything.
MR. STEVES-No, no, but I have the same problem. Neither one of us ever reviewed this before.
MRS. YORK-Excuse me. I don't mean to get into this. I was asked a question. So, I'll respond. There
was an October '86 Sketch Plan approval for a subdivision by Stuart Messenger, which goes on to a great
extent. Basically, his first comment, Staff has numerous problems with this proposal. First, it does
not meet the submission requirements, and it goes on and on for two pages. I have no idea what happened,
I mean, I don't know what discussions transpired at the Planning Board.
MR. CARTIER-But conceptual approval means just that, conceptual. That doesn't mean nothing can change
from that point on.
MR. STEVES-Yes, but at that time, perhaps the Board should take the time to review the proposal, because
at that time, the discussions said that contours should be shown on the map, drainage should be shown
on the map. Drainage had been revised several times on the map. The lot that's on this map, for
instance, that's an unnumbered lot that was originally used for drainage, and a retention pond was
created there, and the comments from the Town came back saying, we don't want them. Try something
else. So, then the positive drainage system was installed, and that is on the Master Plan for the
entire site. So, we're in the same boat.
MR. CARTIER-I understand that.
MR. STEVES-Help me out, and let's work together.
MR. CARTIER-Fine, I agree.
MR. MARTIN-I'm just saying that, I don't know how, you're looking at one potential solution is
installation of 800 foot more road. I mean, that's something that's usually not very popular among
developers.
MR. O'CONNOR-You have a significant impact, though, with the variation that you actually have talked
about. I haven't heard your consultant actually say that that is a significant impact. He said that
that is a nonconformance that would require that.
MR. YARMOWICH-I wanted to point out to the Board that there were certain impacts. I don't have a
recommendation to the Board one way or the other. It's in their discretion to issue a waiver on
regulations. They are the ones that are making this decision. I do believe that curves of this nature
are going to have different results in this subdivision than they would under a subdivision that would
be approved under the 1982 or the current regulations, because they are so tight. The results will
be differences in speed, differences in ability to negotiate, changes in the way utilities get installed,
changes in the way snow gets plowed.
MR. MARTIN-Again, it gets to back to my age old comment, that's why we're here, to plan against stuff
like this.
MR. O'CONNOR-We're going to be, I think, in our life time, installing all these buildings that are
in there. I've been involved with the sewer district, trying to get a sewer system to come up Bay
Road, and the cost of that is prohibitive. I don't think you're going to see sewer throughout, into
a resident subdivision of this nature, in my life time or in your life time. I really don't think
you're going to see that, and the soils up there will support individual septic systems, but I don't
know if the question of utilities is a real impact that the Town, as a municipality, will have a burden
with. The developer will actually meet the difference in the installation cost of the utilities up
front. I don't know what the difference is and I can't quantify it. You're getting into areas where
I'm not real comfortable arguing with you, from a legal point of view. I think it is engineering.
MR. BREWER-Safety, also, is a factor you have to take into consideration.
MR. CARTIER-Yes. It just occurs to me, this is a residential neighborhood. You're going to have kids
in the street riding on bikes. How much forewarning are you going to have going around these very
tight radiuses with kids in the road out there? That's a fact of life.
MR. STEVES-I couldn't agree with you more, but I happen to live on a street that has that condition.
The radius on it, probably, is 50 feet, center line, and the name of that road is Brayton Avenue.
I go around it every day. I don't have any problems with it. I also have grandchildren that play
on that road, and the children across the street play on that road.
41
'-
'--'"
MR. MARTIN-My next question wou1d be, what was the date of the subdivision that approved that?
MR. STEVES-There wasn't. It was before your time.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. STEVES-Neverthe1ess, it's there, and it does work.
MR. O'CONNOR-You're ta1king a re1ative1y f1at subdivision with very short roads that are not
thoroughfares to some other subdivision. They're going to serve just those 10ts that are on those
roads.
MRS. PULVER-Very few cars win be making the comp1ete circ1e, because ha1f of them wi11 Hve one side,
and ha1f of them wi11 1ive the other side.
MR. CARTIER-I guess my question is phi10sophica1, then. When do we app1y standards? If we constant1y
waive standards that are set, what's the point of having the standards?
MR. STEVES-We agree with you.
MR. BREWER-There's 25 houses on this one road, right here. That's, potentiany, 25 cars, or 50 cars,
in reaHty.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, but we're not beyond the point of no return, of changing it.
MR. STEVES-No, but 1ets do it in a simp1istic form.
MR. MARTIN-I'11 te11 you what, though, what we're not going to do is, and we've been through this before
on subdivisions, at a PreHminary Stage, is that we've been t01d very strict1Y that we cannot design
a project, and we're not going to do that, but we win ten you what is not approvab1e, and that's
the on1y power we have.
MR. STEVES-11m not here to argue with you. I inherited this prob1em. You inherited this prob1em.
You just ten us what you want done with this project, and we'1J do it, but don't come on strong to
me. I'm on1y trying to do my job. I inherited this prob1em, just as you have.
MR. CARTIER-Leon, understand, we're not b1aming you.
MR. MARTIN-Wen, why don't we open a pub1ic hearing and see what that brings to 1ight, if anything.
I'n open the pub1ic hearing. Is there anyone here from the pub1ic who wishes to comment on this
appHcation?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MARTIN-And the SEQRA was done, Lee?
MRS. YORK-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-We11, that 1eaves us just with disposition. What is everybody's fee1ing about this?
MR. LAPOINT-I mean, it's fair1y c1ear. We're f1at. The houses are going to be, what, from the front
1ine, approximate1y, 50? What's the front setback going to be, approximate1y, here?
MR. STEVES-I think the Code is 30 feet.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
tight radius turns.
So, we shou1d have a nice c1ear view around that reverse turn and through those
I mean, it's not 1ike we're going to be having store fronts.
MR. STEVES-No. We've been trying to set them back even further.
MR. LAPOINT-Correct. So, I think you're going to have the site distances amp1e for this type of
geometry, I wou1d think.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. LaPoint, do you want to require 40 feet on the areas of the radius in question?
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Anything wou1d he1p. Again, I think 30's definite1y going to be amp1e. I mean,
you can strike a Hne across there that wou1d show you wou1dn't, even at 35 feet, you're never going
to have a house in the 1ine of site of that reverse turn.
42
"--'
---
MR. CARTIER-Yes, but people might put shrubbery along the road or.
MR. 0' CONNOR- The appl icant has no objection to a restrictive covenant saying that the improvements
will be back at least 40 feet from those lots, and that no shrubberies above three feet will be permitted
beyond that building line. We'll put it in a restrictive covenant.
MR. CARTIER-How do you enforce shrubbery kept at three feet? There's a difficulty of enforcement there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Neighbors usually take care of neighbors on any restrictive covenant I've found, within
the subdivisions that we've set out. If there's a problem, if the guy isn't cutting it, he's usually
reminded that he's got a problem, and he cuts it.
MR. BREWER-I'd like to see something done, but I don't know what could be done, really. I don't know.
Is there an alternative?
MR. STEVES-There's a possibility of straightening out the curves a little bit on each, I've drawn it
up there, but what happens when I do that, I'm going to be tightening up the curves on the other end.
So, that I would have to make them just a little tighter than they are. For instances, here I can
come into a straight away, come into a tangent.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I mean, everybody makes right hand and left hand turns, left and right. There's
a point that you stop at those. Here you're, instead of stopping, you're just kind of gradually going
around them. The other alternative would be intersections, 90's. I mean, you can't lose or gain any
curvature here and still have the same road cut.
MR. LAURICELLA-You can have the same road cut, only you lose some of those lots.
MR. LAPOINT-You're not going to get any better radiuses, I don't think. I mean, how are you going
to do it, with the 800 feet of new road?
MR. CARTIER-I don't know. We're getting into stuff where we're planning this thing out, and I'm not
sure that's our job. It's appropriate to raise questions and issues, but for us to be sitting here
planning a layout, I'm not sure it's time well served.
MR. BREWER-These road cuts almost have to be here if all these lots are sold, though, Pete. I mean,
I don't like it any more than you do, but it's reality. I mean, what could we have him do, could we
have him come back with some different plan and maybe Tom could look at it with him? I don't know,
but if these lots were all sold.
MR. CARTIER-Isn't there any way to bring this farther back, here. You're going to have to, obviously,
change lot, well, you're not going to get something for nothing, here. Something's going to have to
change a lot.
MR. BREWER-No. I understand that. If you took 5,000 feet off of that. You can't really take anything
off of that.
MR. CARTIER-Well, you might lose lots back here, okay.
MR. BREWER-I don't know.
MR. MARTIN-Pete, do you have anything else to add?
MR. CARTIER-I don't think so. I'm not happy with this. I know that.
MR. LAURICELLA-We don't have the '82 Regulations, so we know.
MRS. YORK-I didn't bring them with me tonight.
MRS. PULVER-I would like to see an improvement myself, but I think it's out of my knowledge. I don't
have a better way to do it.
MR. LAPOINT-I come up with nine lots where he'd need restrictive covenant setback, 91, 94, 95, 88,
77, 73, 60, 53, and 47.
MR. CARTIER-You're talking about down around the curves?
MR. LAPOINT-Those are the line of site you'd have to keep fairly clear.
MR. CARTIER-Read those off again?
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'm starting way up at the top left, 91, 94, 95, 88, and then over to the next loop,
77, 73, then over to the next loop, 60, 53, and 47.
43
--
MR. BREWER-Fifty four, also, Ed.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's what I was starting to mess with.
MR. BREWER-What about on the way out, Ed, not just coming in?
MR. LAPOINT-Well, the way outs are intersections, right? You've got to stop.
MR. BREWER-No, but I'm saying, is if you've got this lot where you've got 47. You're going out this
way, right?
MR. LAPOINT-Yes.
MR. BREWER-What if somebody's coming in? Did you include 54?
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I got 54.
MR. BREWER-So, you've got them coming in and going out.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Right.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, have you got a motion, there, you could put together?
MOTIO. TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 HERALD S(JIARE, PHASE II, Introduced by Edward
LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
With the following conditions: Regarding the Rist-Frost letter dated 20 April 1992, that Item Number
Three, the lot abutting VanDusen Road should be numbered, the drainage easements be indicated per Item
Number Four, and that the subsurface disposal systems be limited to absorption trenches, and that the
drainage system plan will not have any 1 inear exceedents of 300 feet between interception by drywell,
there's a maximum of 300 feet, and that the following restrictive covenants be filed with the final
subdivision, that there be a restrictive covenant of a 40 foot setback on the following lots for building
construction and/or hedge rows above three feet, Lots 91, 94, 95, 88, 77, 73, 60, 53, 54, and 47.
Duly adopted this 21st day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint
NOES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin
MR. MARTIN-Application's not approved.
MR. CARTIER-I'd like to toss out to everybody here, suggest, possibly, a workshop session with the
Board on this one, somewhere down the line, if that might help.
MR. O'CONNOR-Schedule it.
MR. MARTIN-Do you want to schedule it?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-All right.
MR. CARTIER-That was only Æl suggestion.
MR. LAPOINT-I'm open to it. Sure.
MR. BREWER-It's fine with me.
MRS. YORK-Let me just remind the Board that before any meetings are scheduled, we have to check with
the Town Clerk.
MR. MARTIN-Right. I'd make that subject to the Town Clerk's approval, because the Clerk's Office,
now, does all scheduling for this room. In May, we've got regular scheduled meetings, so far, and
we were going to talk, at the end, for the 19th and the 26th, but the 26th is a conflict because of
Grievance Day, and Lee is not available the 21st or 28th. Some time earlier in that month, the 12th
or the 14th?
MRS. PULVER-The 12th.
44
--
---
MR. MARTIN-The 12th. Do I hear okay on the 12th?
MR. CARTIER-That evening?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Because we talked about maybe using that for site visits, too, that day.
MR. BREWER-What day is the 12th?
MR. MARTIN-A Tuesday. Tuesday at 7 o'clock?
MRS. TARANA-Can I ask what the purpose is of the meeting?
MR. MARTIN-Workshop session to.
MR. LAPOINT-To redesign the project for the applicant.
MRS. TARANA-Is it our job to do that?
MR. LAPOINT-No, but that's what we're going to end up doing with this thing.
MR. BREWER-No, we're not. We're going to let them come in with something for us.
MR. O'CONNOR-We will come in with something for your consideration.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-We don't expect you to redesign the project. We will come in with something that,
hopefully, you will find acceptable at that time.
MR. CARTIER-Can we also get our other esteemed engineer at this meeting?
MR. YARMOWICH-You can't, but Mr. Hansen or Mr. Brandt can.
MR. MARTIN-I will make that request through the proper channels.
MR. BREWER-Does this kick him back to Sketch, for this, or just?
MRS. YORK-The motion that was passed was for not approving the project at this time.
MR. O'CONNOR-The motion was made to approve. The motion was not approved.
MR. YARMOWICH-So, there is no motion.
MR. MARTIN-No action.
MR. O'CONNOR-So, the project is still on the table.
MRS. YORK-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-And we will stipulate to the Board adjourning this to the next regular scheduled meeting
after our workshop.
MR. YARMOWICH-You, ordinarily, though, would need to either table it by resolution or it will be approved
in 45 days.
MRS. YORK-Right. That's what we're trying to get across here~ You need to get an agreement.
MR. O'CONNOR-We will stipulate to tabling.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'll entertain a motion to that effect.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 HERALD S~ARE, PHASE II, Introduced by Peter
Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Lauricella:
Pending further discussion at a workshop session to be held on Tuesday May 12th, at 7 p.m., room to
be announced.
Duly adopted this 21st day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
45
--
'---'"
AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin
NOES: NONE (10:33 p.m.)
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PlAN NO. 5-92 TYPE: UILISTED SR-lA RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR. ClfNER: F. OSCAR SUrtDBERG EAST
SIDE OF MEADOWBROOK ROAD - :t9OO FT. NORTH OF CRONIN ROAD APARTMEIT COII'LEX CONSISTING OF THREE BUILDINGS
- TOTAL OF 18 UNITS. TAX MAP NO. 46-2-9.4, 9.5 LOT SIZE: ±19.54 ACRES SECTIOfC: 179-19
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (10:33 p.m)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, S.P. #5-92, R. Schermerhorn, Jr., April 9, 1992, Meeting Date:
April 21, 1992 "The application is to build 18 units on Meadowbrook Road. Two buildings will be 8
unit structures with a duplex between them. The Board has reviewed this site before for a wetlands
permit. The area of construction will be filled and a large portion of the land behind the fill will
be undeveloped because it is wetlands. The property will be sewered and Town water will be provided.
The staff would suggest that the applicant consider discussion of dedication of land rather than paying
recreation fees. This would be a Town Board issue. The Town Board may be interested as this wet area
is part of a regionally and globally significant habitat. The habitat/wetland corridor abuts a few
other properties and then enters Hiland Park PUD where the Town has donated some land. The Town Board
might be interested in extending that greenway area. The Planning Board has to make any approval
contingent on the donation of land or payment of recreation fees. Meadowbrook Road is fairly rural
in character and this will be a substantial change. The development should be done to minimize the
visual impact. To create a more open appearance more green space could be placed in the front. The
8 unit structures might be turned so that the 35 foot ends faced the road. Parking could be placed
between the buildings with plantings buffering the parking area. The key is not the magnitude of what
is built but the layout and design which should conform to the neighborhood character. Lighting and
signage are not shown on the plan. The Board may want to discuss this."
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Tom, do you have comments?
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, April 17, 1992 "We have reviewed the project
and have the following engineering comments: 1. Layout dimensions should be provided. 2. The plan
should provide more information describing traffic flow and control as the Planning Board deems
appropriate. The site entrance layout should provide for truck access. 3. Pedestrian walkways allowing
handicap access to buildings should be provided. 4. Alternative dumpster locations should be considered
that provide additional space for truck maneuvering. 5. Backing areas should be provided for the
parking spaces at the north and south ends of the parking bays. 6. The location and design of all
proposed outdoor lighting facilities should be indicated. 7. A landscape plan should be requested.
8. Construction materials for water, sewer and storm drainage should be indicated. 9. The sizes
of the existing water and sewer lines should be indicated on the plan. 10. A reducer should be
indicated for the apartment complex water service beyond the union between the 6" fire hydrant tee.
11. Thrust restraint is needed for the proposed tapping sleeve tee. 12. The typical hydrant
installation detail should indicate 5'-6" minimum cover per Town Standards. 13. The connection to
existing manhole detail should specify concrete or grout to form the interior flow channels. 14.
The orientation of the north arrow on the utility plan is incorrect. 15. Drainage from the entire
parking lot and a portion of the building roofs is directed to the proposed ditch adjacent to Meadowbrook
Road along the property frontage. Based on the inverts of the proposed driveway culvert it appears
the drainage is intended to be collected by this ditch and conveyed in a southerly direction. A
positively sloped ditch on the property around the fill needs to be provided. The drainage concept
requires reevaluation to maintain sheet flow from development directly into the wetland in accordance
with the mutually accepted SWM concept by DEC and RFA as the Town Engineer. 16. The proposed grading
and drainage along the south edge of the parking lot is incomplete. As graded, the fill in this area
creates a low point (contour 300) on the adjacent off-site property (Piper) which will collect and
pond the stormwater runoff from the development. This area should be re-graded to eliminate the created
depression. 17. Drainage calculations should be provided for the proposed 12" driveway culvert.
18. With regard to development in the Floodplain and Floodway: a. The 100-year floodplain and floodway
boundaries are not shown. b. According to the FEMA Floodway Maps, the northern third of this proposed
development is located within the Floodway. In accordance with Queensbury Code 91-17, all encroachments,
including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development, are prohibited within
the floodway unless a technical evaluation demonstrates that such encroachment shall not result in
any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. To assess the impacts,
an encroachment analysis should be performed by updating the FEMA study based on proposed site grading
data. c. As per Queensbury code 179-65.B.(17) and (18), fills shall not encroach on floodway areas.
Fills placed adjacent to or having an impact on floodplains shall have suitable protection against
erosion during flooding. Furthermore, no development shall be permitted in a floodway if such
development raises the water surface elevation of the base flood at any point in the community."
46
---
~
MR. MARTIN-A letter from the Queensbury Town Wastewater Department.
MRS. YORK-Right. It's from Mike Shaw, the Director, to Lee York, Senior Planner, April 3, 1992 "In
reviewing the Meadowbrook Park plans, I have the following comment. 1. The park's lateral for sewer
service must be tapped off the Town's main and not the manhole. This tap will be done by the Wastewater
Department. 2. Pickless manhole covers must be used. 3. Proper access to the backwater valve must
be provided. 4. Only registered contractors with the Town of Queensbury Department of Wastewater
can construct the building sewer lateral. 5. The sanitary sewer connection must comply with the Town
of Queensbury Department of Wastewater Standard specifications. If you have any other questions on
this matter, please call me at my office."
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Tom?
MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, Tom Nace, again. Lets first address the Planning Staff comments with
regard to layout, okay. This project has already been, in one form, in front of you, in the way of
a wetlands fill permit, okay. There are existing wetlands fill permits from the Town and from DEC
that extend the back just to the depth of this front portion of 130 feet on one side and 126 on the
other, and that is the only thing we have a permit to be able to fill. We have been back to DEC when
it came time to design the stormwater system, the first time around, back in December. We went back
to DEC and asked for a modification to allow us to put a little buffer area for stormwater in here.
DEC said no. We don't like it. We'd rather that you do something else, that we don't want that
intrusion back there. If you take a look at the overall tax map, you'll see that, or look in the field,
the frontage properties along here are all filled in and developed back to this line, and there's been
no disturbance behind that, and I think that's what's driving DEC, not wanting to go beyond that.
So, we're confined to using this 130 feet by, whatever it is, 300 portion of property.
MR. CARTIER-How long is that 18 unit building.
MR. NACE-It's 106 feet. There is not room to turn it and get your setbacks, okay.
MR. CARTIER-Assuming that you stay at that size building.
MR. NACE-Assuming that we stay at that size building. The zoning of the land allows us to construct
the 18 units we have shown here. Now, consideration, in that one of our goals for orienting it this
way is to first provide a more decorative front of the buildings to Meadowbrook Road, and I'll show
you in just a minute the plans, the architectural plans for the buildings. We think they're rather
nice, and we think it'll be a very nice looking development when it's all done. Secondly, the activity
around the units will take place mostly in the rear, okay, decks, people barbecuing, whatever. That
noise is better directed back this way than at your neighbors. The units don't have any windows on
the end, which provides more privacy. If everybody's back door, back windows, kitchen sink windows
was aimed out at a neighbor, I don't think that's a very good solution. We will try, we have taken
a look, this evening, and discussed with the developer some multiplications which will allow us to
get a little more buffering, and that is to take these dumpsters, locate them back here. We'll eliminate
a parking space, here, put the dumpster at a little bit of an angle back in the corner, put the stockade
fence around it and do a good deal of planting around that. We will take the island out of here and
decrease the overall width of the entrance, here, and provide more planting in here, and in here, and
try to get a little more buffering, so that any place you look at this you don't see a whole great
facade of structure, but rather have that broken up by the dumpster and by these two areas of planting.
Let me show you, just briefly, what the units would look like. These are the two end units. In each
portion of this, there will be four units, two down and two up, for a total of eight on each of the
structures. There'll be two, a little bit colonial looking, entrance-ways into the units. The center
unit will look much the same. The front door will lead into a stair, in this one that leads up to
apartments up above. The downstairs, here, will provide storage space for all of the units, all 18
units. So, they'll each have storage space where bicycles, lawn stuff, play toys, whatever can be
easily stored.
MR. MARTIN-What's the approximate square footage of each space?
RICHARD SCHERMERHORN
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Each unit will be spaced about 800 square feet.
MR. MARTIN-How many bedrooms?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Two.
MR. NACE-So, at any rate, we think that it will present a fairly nice facade to the road, and with
some plantings spaced out to break that up a little bit.
MR. MARTIN-While we're into all this, what type of siding and any color scheme in mind, or?
47
'--'
---
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I'm Rich Schermerhorn. It'll be vinyl siding. The color will be white. I've already
determined that. It'll be the four inch clapboard siding, so it looks colonial like. It'll have the
shudders on it. Shingles. I don't know what else I can tell you.
MR. MARTIN-Well, that's pretty much everything. Okay.
MR. NACE-Any more questions on the units?
MRS. TARANA-Are they built on cement slabs? Is that what it is?
MR. NACE-Yes, they will be built on slabs. The whole area where these are constructed will be filled
with approximately 30 inches of granular material, and these will be slabs on grade, then. So, given
the constraints of the site, I think that, well, even if we had a little more space, I think that it
provides a little more privacy for the neighbors, in this arrangement, rather than turning these end
units back here against the back, and having the back patios and the back windows facing out at the
neighbors.
MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess, this is mostly an aesthetic comment, but you're going to have cars out front,
which is going to interfere, somewhat, with the view of those things. I can visualize people out,
somewhat li ke this place right down the road. You're going to have boats parked out there. You're
going to have people working on their cars out there.
MR. BREWER-Regency.
MR. CARTIER-Regency. I don't know where I'm going with this. It's just that this looks, I really
like Lee's comment about some creative moving of the buildings or maybe the parking in back, or for
something like that.
MR. NACE-If you put the parking in the back, those buildings, two story buildings, are going to be
overpowering from the road.
MR. CARTIER-Yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Most of your apartment complexes, like Regency and John Burke Apartments, it's stated
right in their lease agreements, they're not permitted to work on cars in the parking lot. It's not
permitted to have boat storage. I can't remember the last time, well, I have seen boats in parking
lots, but I'm going to run it and maintain it, and I will be enforcing it.
MR. CARTIER-So, you are going to have stipulations to the effect.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-There will be stipulations, and, as a matter of fact, with the residences, I've just
gone over quite a few of them. So, that will be a stipulation that will be in the leases.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. LAURICELLA-Tom, how do you figure the density on that? Do you use the whole 25 acres, or how do
you?
MATT STEVES
MR. STEVES-Matt Steves. You have 19 and a half acres there.
MR. LAURICELLA-I realize that, but it's not all usable land.
MR. STEVES-No, but the area is one dwelling unit per acre, and it's clustered.
MR. CARTIER-Yes. This is the ultimate cluster.
MR. LAURICELLA-Is that acceptable to use? Even the land is not usable?
MR. NACE-That's when clustering is required.
MR. LAURICELLA-So, you could have a hill, and have 50 feet in front of the hill, and you could use
that?
MRS. YORK-If it were a traditional layout of a subdivision, then you would take out the unbuildable
land, but since it's not, it's a cluster development, so to speak, or a high density development, you
can use the total acreage. I mean, it's always up to this Board to reduce that, if they so choose.
MR. LAURICELLA-Because that's the problem. You're only dealing with a small parcel of land. You can't
adjust anything.
MRS. YORK-Yes.
48
"--'
---
MR. NACE-I think with the quality of construction that Rich has done, and I think he's got a couple
of other apartment buildings, in Fort Ann and Hudson Falls. You're certainly welcome to take a look
at those. Let me take a little pressure off. With all the comments, we're not looking for approval
tonight, okay. We want to get the major issues addressed and make sure we understand where the Board's
coming from. I'm sure we'll be back next month.
MR. MARTIN-The only thing I want to just suggest to the Board, some people say I have a bent toward
single family housing, but there are areas of the Town where it's appropriate. You've got Regency
right down the road, and I don't know if the Board rememb~~~aybe some people weren't here. We just
approved, what was that, a 90 unit cluster on the~1!aú'r1Se there, the back nine of what used to
be Bay Meadows. So, you're looking at an area th~ a mix between the single family and the multi
family.
MR. CARTIER-That was for a re-zoning, correct?
MR. MARTIN-It was a re-zoning request, but they did show large, multi plex buildings, very similar
to this, and, with Regency right down the road, and I know you've got some single family in there,
and you're right next to a PUD and we have a potential there on the back nine of the other golf course.
MRS. PULVER-Yes, but Bay Meadows, that was turned down.
MR. LAURICELLA-No, it wasn't.
MRS. PULVER-It wasn't?
MR. MARTIN-No. We recommended approval on that, as I recall.
MR. CARTIER-There's one on Cronin Road. That was a re-zoning request that we looked at for the Zoning
Board and the Zoning Board. This other one on Bay Road, too. There's two different ones.
MR. MARTIN-I don't even think it's appropriate to present the elevations, in this case. I mean, we
have seen some colonial character of these buildings.
MR. NACE-I think they'll be fairly nice looking.
MR. MARTIN-It's unfortunate that you've got to pack it into the area you do.
MR. NACE-That's, we're in an area, you know, the one thing we have going against us is, obviously,
the site conditions, with the wet area behind us. However, we do have municipal water and sewer.
MR. BREWER-You get those rental homes, you're going to have kids there.
MR. MARTIN-Well, it's like Regency.
MR. NACE-Except with the extreme difference that it will be owner maintained, and I'm sure Rich wants
to keep up his property value. So, it's not the size. It's a smaller size, which is a little more
manageable for somebody to keep tight control over what it looks like. So, as far as the layout, are
there any other issues there that we ought to? Concerns on the layout itself? I'll get into the
engineering comments.
MRS. YORK-If I could just suggest, when you bring in your revised plan, if you would just put the
setbacks on, it would be very helpful.
MR. NACE-I'm sorry. We will. Yes. I think they are on the one plan, if you look on the layout, the
first plan. I believe the shown, 16 foot side setbacks. The front setback is obviously more than
60 feet.
MR. CARTIER-Did you talk about dedication of land, rather than paying Rec Fees?
MR. NACE-No. I haven't yet. We would certainly entertain the possibility of dedicating the entire,
I think there's 19 acres, and we're only utilizing a small portion of that. So, there's, say there's
18 acres.
MR. MARTIN-Much of which is wetland?
MR. NACE-Much of which is wetland, almost all of which is floodplain, that we will certainly entertain
dedicating to the Town, in lieu of fees. Now, how do we proceed with that? Do we take that to the
Town Board?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's not our function here.
MR. NACE-Okay.
49
--
---
MR. MARTIN-Do you have anything with the Department of Wastewater comments?
MR. NACE-No. In fact, I tried to call Mike today to discuss the actual location of the connection,
because I'm not sure that he understands or realizes that it's a fairly large size connection. I don't
know what your thoughts are, Tom, as far as connecting at the manhole, versus Mike's suggestion and
connecting to the main, but I would think that we'd prefer to use the manhole.
MR. YARMOWICH-I think Mike should decide what to do.
MR. NACE-Okay. We will discuss it with Mike.
MR. MARTIN-All right, and you said that you're of a mind of having to come back, right?
MR. NACE-Well, okay. There are a couple of things. We have not provided landscaping plan, because
of our own miscommunications. Obviously, we have to do that. So, yes, we will be back, but I would
like to make sure that, when we come back, that our proposed method of addressing your concerns meets
with your approval, here. I can sit down with Tom and resolve the engineering issues, but I'm not
sure if you have any input to those issues that we ought to hear, now.
MR. LAURICELLA-What about buffering? Are we going to require buffering, to the point that center
building might have to go and we just use, have two buildings, and they'd have to move those closer?
I mean, I'm just throwing that out as something that, he should know that before he comes back.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. You mean, maybe combine the center building and one of the side ones?
MR. LAURICELLA-I don't know, if you're going to consider it all, any approvals, if you want to consider
the neighborhood.
MR. MARTIN-Well, he's in conformance with the setbacks now, right?
MR. NACE-That is correct.
MR. LAURICELLA-We don't have the right to change that?
MRS. PULVER-Well, if there was a reason.
MR. LAURICELLA-The reason is to give the neighbors some buffering.
MR. LAPOINT-What are we gaining, two or three feet?
MRS. PULVER-Well, he's within his setbacks.
MR. LAURICELLA-I'm talking about taking that center building right out.
MR. NACE-If we change that, it may change the whole economics of the project and we may not be back
at all.
MR. MARTIN-Well, does anybody see, I'll ask the Board, rather than having him stand here and go through
each and every comment. Is there anything in the engineering comments that jumps out at anybody, that
they want to emphasize, or go into details with Tom, while we have him here?
MR. MARTIN-Is there anything that you see? I generally look to Tom, if Tom is satisfied with his
resolution of the comments.
MR. YARMOWICH-Well, I think Comment 13's resolved.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. YARMOWICH-Mike Shaw did that for him.
MR. NACE-There's some stuff in here that I'll have to sit down with Tom, with a proposed resolution.
MR. MARTIN-But, is there anybody on the Board who wants to, so we don't ambush him here later on?
MR. LAURICELLA-I still think you're taking a large parcel of land, squeezing those buildings on only
the buildable portion. So, you might as well just forget the rest of it. If that 19 acres is no good,
you could do that with every project then.
MR. NACE-But it's allowed by the Code.
MR. LAURICELLA-I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying, that's not right.
50
-'
MR. LAPOINT-The Town's going to inherit that swamp, probably, as result of this project.
MR. MARTIN-I think preservation of a wetland, there's a merit to that. I don't necessarily dismiss
that as, we're getting swamp land, here. I mean, it's not like we're in the development business.
So, is there anything else the Board wants to, before we open the public hearing, here?
MR. NACE-Would it be appropriate for me to just quickly poll the Board and see whether our layout,
because I'm not intending to change to a basic layout. I "m intending to change details to address.
If the layout is totally out of the question with the Board, then.
MR. MARTIN-Well, lets just do that.
MR. LAPOINT-The layout's fine with me.
MRS. PULVER-My only comment is, I would rather reserve my comment until after the public hearing, in
case the public has some real objections or something, then we will only have to go over it again.
MR. MARTIN-All right. I'll open a public hearing. Is there anyone in the public who wishes to address
the Board regarding this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JIM PIPER
MR. PIPER-Yes. My name is Jim Piper. I own the property immediately south of this complex. The one
thing that sent out an alarm for me is when I heard in the engineering statement that the water is
going to be funneled south. That's right on my property. That's an extremely low area. We are all
filled in that area, but I have concerns, the size of this complex and the amount of water that's going
to be generated south. lt"s in a floodplain, I find out it's in a fl, oodway now. I just recently
got told within the last week I have to have flood insurance, because now FEMA claims all the houses
in there are in a floodplain. So, I have a genuine concern that, what is this going to do to the water
table in the area? I sat down with Rich, earlier this evening. I looked over the plans. I'm not
really thrilled having a major apartment complex just north of a single residential family home. I
do agree, though, that there are hardships with the property. That area is swampy. It has been swampy
for years. I would point out that part of the property that they're talking about giving to the Town,
they have another pond on it. Quite possibly the Town would like to dredge that one also, like they
have Hovey Pond, because there is a pond on that, may present a problem for the Town. I'm just telling
you it's there.
MR. MARTIN-We will forward these comments on to the Town Board.
MR. NACE-For the benefit of Mr. Piper, can I address the water drainage issue?
MR. MARTIN-Sure.
MR. NACE- The area to the south is actually higher than out back. The water, predominantly, will go
out back. There is a real concern that Tom brought up, the way we have shown the contours, we're
blocking a little low area adjacent to Mr. Piper's property, actually on Mr. Piper's property. We
will alleviate that and make sure that that area drains back to the east. As far as the increase in
water table, because this is a low wet area, right now any rainfall that hits that doesn't soak in.
It's right on the surface anyway. Creating additional impervious area within a swamp doesn't really
alter the amount of runoff or rainfall that accumulates in the groundwater.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Anyone else from the public?
MATT LUDEMANN
MR. LUDEMANN-My name is Matt Ludemann. I'm here in my capacity as Director of the Adirondack Girl
Scout Council, which owns two parcels directly across the street from the proposed project. I have
two general comments, both of which have been touched upon. One is that, while this is the only project
on Meadowbrook Road which is before you tonight, there is presently a development under way for the
Bay Meadows Golf Course, which does have property abutting Meadowbrook Road, although they don't plan
to use that as an access. There, apparently, is also a 155 unit housing development which is going
to go between Bay Road and Meadowbrook Road, which is somewhere in the planning stage, and presumably,
over time, we will see eventual further developments of the Hiland Park PUD. The obvious concern here
is that Meadowbrook Road has gone from being what was once a dirt road before Hiland Park, and it's
now paved and there's going to be quite heavily traveled, and we"d like the Planning Board to keep
that in mind as they go along on all these different projects. While this one might not be that
significant, I think over time, especially when Hiland Park and this 155 unit housing subdivision get
put in, that's going to be quite a change. The other comment is, and this was also touched upon, is
that unfortunately, and because of the nature of this project, there's already a fill permit in place
51
-
.---
which limits the development on this property to a very small piece, and when you have over 19 acres,
potentially, to use, even though a lot of it's in the floodplain. One comment we had is we couldn't
tell, from looking at the maps, where the actual wetland boundaries are, where the floodplain boundaries
are, and it was unclear to us, although DEC apparently has made a ruling as to how far the fill could
go, whether or not there is room outside the floodplain and outside of the wetlands to try and rearrange
the site a little bit. The initial concern the Girl Scouts had, getting onto specific comments, is
that we were concerned, when looking at it, that it would appear that you've got about 377 feet of
road frontage, and approximately 80 percent or more, 85 percent of it was going to be building frontage.
The buildings, though, will be put as far back, apparently, as they can go, giving room for the decks.
There is no landscape plan. Our main concern is that the rural characteristic will be maintained,
to the extent it can be. The parking lot is only shown to be five feet back from the property line,
and I understand there's going to be a drainage swale or ditch six feet in width between the road and
the parking lot. Our main concern, here, is that, basically, between that and the need for fill, the
site is going to be clear cut, and that there's going to be very little available space that can be
left either in its natural state or it will have to be re-planted. I think that's going to have to
be addressed, when they come back, as to what they're going to do with it, to decorate or screen the
front there. We did have a long discussion with them, earlier outside, and maybe some of the other
neighbors want to comment on this, about the effects of turning the building on the property, because
we're across the street and we're not going to see that much except the fact that we're going to lose
what is now just trees. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you.
MARY ZI BRO
MRS. ZIBRO-My name's Mary Zibro and I manage Regency Park Apartments, which is actually, and you can't
work on cars. We have 296 units right on Cronin and Meadowbrook Road. When we are filled to capacity,
we have, probably, 500 cars there. This is going to have at least another 60 cars there. It's pretty
rough right now, Cronin and Meadowbrook, and traffic, and I just can't see the need for another apartment
complex up there. That's all I've got to say.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you.
MR. CARTIER-Tom, how many units are we talking about, 18 units altogether?
MR. NACE-Eighteen, thirty six cars, max.
MR. BREWER-Thirty six cars.
TED TURNER
MR. TURNER-Ted Turner, resident of Meadowbrook. The one concern I have is that maybe what was addressed
here is buffered as much as possible, because it's predominately residential, single family, preexisting
small lots. We'd like to keep it that character, if we could. Other than that, I don't think you
can turn the building any other way.
LEE MI LLER
MRS. MILLER-My name is Lee Miller and I live on Cronin Road, and I feel one apartment complex is enough.
I have the Regency across from me and they are only half filled. So, why have another apartment complex,
and the Regency is also using the lot across from my house as a dumping ground. There's mattresses
there. There's hot water heaters there. Anything they have to discard is on a big pile out there,
and I hope I don't get another one across the street.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-Make sure to call the State on that, right up to Region Four in Warrensburg, and make a
move on it. I mean, this is something the Town shouldn't, if people are illegally dumping mattresses
and hot water heaters and the lot.
MRS. MILLER-It's the people from Regency.
MR. LAPOINT-Well, whoever it is.
MRS. MILLER-Yes. We've spoken to the Manager.
MR. LAPOINT-At the State?
MRS. MILLER-No, not yet.
MR. LAPOINT-You talk to the fellow at Region Five in Warrens burg about dumping stuff in there, and
if he doesn't respond, he's got to respond to that.
52
--
-
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Anyone else? I think we're looking at an agreement of tabling from the applicant.
So, I think I will leave the public hearing open until we see what the final results of your landscaping
plan are. That seems to be a critical concern from the public, and I think the Board would like to
see that.
MRS. YORK-Mr. Chairman, I do have a letter. "To the Queensbury Planning Board Members: We are writing
in reference to your 4/14/92 public hearing on Site Plan Review No. 5-92, Richard Schermerhorn, Jr.,
Owner: F. Oscar Sundberg, for an apartment complex of 3 buildings and 18 apartment units. Since we
will be unable to express our feelings in person at the meeting, we want to make it known by this letter
to the Board that we are unequivocally in favor of the approval of the request by Mr. Schermerhorn
and Mr. Sundberg for the following reasons. The 18 housing units on 20± acres meet the zoned one
residence per one acre requirement. The property, unlike most of the Town, has the utilities of gas,
water, and sewer. This makes the location ideal for this type of housing. Additional property
assessment value is desperately needed in this Queensbury Sewer district so as to help to lower the
tax burden. Tax and Sewer bills in this area are assessed in the thousands of dollars because of the
high bond and limited sewer district. There are senior citizens on fixed income who are in danger
of losing their property. Tax relief will come only with an increased tax base such as the apartments
you are to consider. All nine homes on Meadowbrook Road between Cronin Road and the property in
consideration (and even beyond that) are built on lots of 1/4 acre to perhaps a maximum of 5/8 of an
acre. These are all in noncompliance with the current zoning laws for this area. We are sure you
will receive negative opinions on this proposal, but we request that you seriously consider the good
that this increased assessment value could do for all the people of the area. Yours truly, Mr. and
Mrs. Richard E. MacDonald, Sr. 124 Meadowbrook Road"
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is that all the written comment you have?
MRS. YORK-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, I think the applicant has a pretty good idea where the Board stands on this.
I think we're looking at a landscaping plan we'd like to see. You obviously have the engineering
comments. Potential buffering, anything that can be done in that regard, in terms of your planting
scheme, or whatever. Is there anybody else with anything they'd like to add?
MR. LAURICELLA-The only thing is, they don't need to have that many units. I mean, that may meet the
requirements, but that doesn't mean they have to have that many. If they need buffering, they've got
to move those buildings in for the buffering. They can reduce the number of units.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Anyone else?
MRS. TARANA-I have two questions. Is there any area around there for children to play?
MR. NACE-Only the areas behind the units, which will be, primarily, deck area, and the areas here off
to the side.
MRS. TARANA-On the road, or in the road.
MR. NACE-No.
MR. LAURICELLA-In the parking lot.
MR. CARTIER-Don't they have access to the property behind, or is that completely out of the question?
MR. BREWER-It's all swamp.
MR. CARTIER-It's all swamp now.
MRS. TARANA-I have another question. You have the potential of having, maybe, 72 kids in there, and
I think that might be a concern. My other concern is, if the runoff, you said, is going from Meadowbrook
back.
MR. NACE-That's correct.
MRS. TARANA-On the property. Is it running right into the wetlands?
MR. NACE-Yes, that is what DEC wants to do. We had several sessions and several different submittals
to the DEC regarding what we do with stormwater. The end analysis, between talking with DEC and
Rist-Frost Associates, is that the consensus is that if they find it more acceptable to try to get
as much sheet flow as possible, not to concentrate the stormwater in any location, but to let it
naturally runoff into the existing wetland. Wetlands are good buffers. They're about the best way
you can treat stormwater, for any sediments it carries, or anything, and they're great storage
facilities, and that same water, we're not really increasing the amount of water in the wetland at
all, because what falls there right now, in the way of rain.
53
-
---
MRS. TARANA-Well, you're not increasing the rain water, but you're increasing the runoff from a 1arge
paved parking 10t, and the roofs.
MR. NACE-Not really, because it's wet1and now. The water tab1e is very dose to the surface. The
rain that falls on the wet1and now really doesn't soak in. It has nowhere to go. So, every inch of
rainfa11 increases the e1evation of water in the wet1and by an inch.
MR. LAURICELLA-You reduce the area of the wet1and, though, by fi11ing it.
MR. NACE-Very minor.
MR. YARMOWICH-Is qua1ity what you're speaking to?
MRS. TARANA-That's what I'm getting to, yes. You're going to have cars parked there. You're going
to have runoff which is not rain. I'm not ta1king rain water.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MRS. TARANA-And you're having that runoff go right into the wet1ands. So, then my next question is,
where does this wet1ands go?
MR. YARMOWICH-It's very extensive. It, eventually, is hydrau1ically connected. Hydrau1ically I say,
on1y because there may not be a direct path of f10w. There's a pond out there, and there's Ha1fway
Brook. They're all interre1ated and where does the water go? There was discussion. DEC contacted
me, from the Town's perspective on stormwater management. It was their strong opinion that qua1ity
contr01 was not a significant concern of theirs, based on the size of this deve10pment and the use.
There's a certain amount of pollutants and so forth coming off the Meadowbrook, as is now. So, the
way they exp1ained it to me, it wasn't a significant concern. Pollutant 10adings from dog and anima1
droppings and human habitation did not seem, to them, to be significant, compared to the size and the
nature of the wet1and. So, from a water quantity standpoint, I agree with what the app1icant's engineer
is telling you. There's going to be no more, no 1ess runoff. No more, no 1ess water created here.
There wi11 be a minor impact associated with the qua1ity. It did not appear to be a significant concern
to DEC.
MR. NACE- To address the qua1ity issue a 1itt1e bit, in many 10cations, wet1ands are being used and
being thought of as a treatment vehic1e for the eff1uent from sewage treatment p1ants. Primary treatment
is done on the sewage, and then it is discharged into a wet1and for further bi010gica1 treatment.
So, there are some qua1ities to the wet1and and the p1ants and bacteria that grow in a wet1and that
do he1p water qua1ity.
MR. YARMOWICH-The on1y other distinction that I think maybe I can add to he1p the Board for when they
see this thing again, I hope that it's understood that the DEC and the Town of Queensbury Freshwater
Wet1ands, and the fi11 associated with it, are a separate issue from f100dp1ain and f100dway, in that
I'll have to dea1 with this app1icant' s agent on those issues as a separate matter. The fi11 ing of
the wet1and is a done dea1, and that's a permitted and everybody's agreed to that. The stormwater
questions that I think you've raised, as far as I can tell, are okay, but there still wi11 be some
issues to dea1 with on floodp1ain, and that's strict1y the Town's responsibi1ity. DEC is not inv01ved
in that.
MR. MARTIN-Right, Bui1ding and Codes and so on.
MR. YARMOWICH-Right.
MR. MARTIN-A11 right. We11, I think we're at a point where we can entertain a motion for tab1ing with
the app1icant's concurrence. Does somebody want to make that motion?
MOHO. TO TABLE SITE PlAN NO. 5-92 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR., Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer:
With the agreement of the app1icant, in order to allow the app1icant to address issues raised by the
Staff, Board, Engineer, and Wastewater Department, and comments made at the pub1ic hearing.
Du1y adopted this 21st day of Apri1, 1992, by the f0110wing vote:
MR. CARTIER-The pub1ic hearing wi11 remain open, I guess.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pu1ver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Laurice11a, Mr. Martin
NOES: NONE (11:20 p.m.)
54
--
---
MR. MARTIN-To set the agenda for next month. We have a workshop, already, on the 12th, combined with
site visits for that day, four o'clock, May 12th.
MR. BREWER-And then at seven o'clock?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. Seven o'clock, then, the 19th, for the First Regular Meeting, right, Lee?
MRS. YORK-Yes, sir.
MR. MARTIN-And then, after that's a problem, because we can't have the 26th because of Grievance day.
We're looking at the 21st or the 28th, but I just, bear in mind, that that's without the services of
the Staff, because Lee is out on both of those days. So, what's your druthers?
MRS. PULVER-I can't do either.
MRS. YORK-The problem is, Monday nights you've got the Town Board. Tuesday night's the Planning Board.
Wednesday night's the Zoning Board, and Thursday nights, I'm not going to be available the 21st or
the 28th.
MR. BREWER-Why don't we do it in the beginning of the month.
MRS. YORK-The 25th is Memorial Day.
MR. MARTIN-How about the 14th, Lee, is that too early for you?
MRS. YORK-I'm not sure we could get the advertising. We couldn't do the advertising that fast.
MRS. PULVER-Isn't the Town Board, though, the first and third Monday? So, what about the fourth Monday?
MR. MARTIN-That's Memorial Day.
MRS. YORK-That's Memorial Day.
MR. MARTIN-The 21st or the 28th, then, I guess, is the way we can minimize the damage.
MR. LAPOINT-I can be available any time.
MR. BREWER-Whatever.
MR. MARTIN-The 21st, get it over with? All right. The 21st it is. The 21st, Lee? We'll set the
agenda light for that night, if we can't, since you're not here.
MR. CARTIER-And we're going to get Tom here for?
MR. MARTIN-The 12th.
MR. CARTIER-The 12th. We hope.
MR. MARTIN-I will make the request.
MR. O'CONNOR-Can I trade you five minutes for a Special Meeting?
MR. MARTIN-Five minutes for a Special Meeting? That's a done deal, in my mind.
MR. O'CONNOR-To me, as a lawyer, it's easy to draw a line across here and make these key intersections
and realign those things, okay. I'm told it's a major job, to be done right. It's going to be very
difficult to do it, and do it in a meaningful way that we can present to you, that we're happy with
for the May 12th meeting. So, it looks like you're going into, maybe, June, and maybe we can get it
into the regular meeting schedule in June, and present it as you normally would. If, maybe, in the
meantime, we can do something else. Can we change Phase II to be these lots, 84 through 104, and leave
this, as perhaps, a potential Phase III.
MR. MARTIN-And then leave Phase II, then, in that approach, how it is right now?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We're told that you can't connect across this area, here, because of the topographical
feature. That's a very deep cut. You wouldn't be able to do it. We're talking about, here, your
250 foot radius, 250 foot radius, 250, pretty close to what your requirements are. You're talking
about one minor, if I'm correct, would you say reverse tangent, which effects this one lot right here.
So, we minimize, and potentially, even when we come back with something, here, I don't envision a lot
of change for these lots right there. So, if we call this Phase II, hold off on these lots through
here, and we will have to come back to you with something that will make more sense, and not have a
Special Meeting.
55
'-
MR. BREWER-Can we do that?
MR. MARTIN-How does everybody feel about that?
MR. YARMOWICH-I don't follow you when you say that's real steep in there. The topo I have says something
different.
MR. STEVES-Isn't that, that's part of the drainage area.
MR. YARMOWICH-Well, between 210 and 212 there's just the drainage divides right here. That's nothing
to it.
MRS. PULVER-So, you're saying you don't want that 12th meeting. Could we have a regular Planning Board
meeting on the 12th?
MR. YARMOWICH-Well, all I'm saying is that, if the justification is that you can't traverse a road
across there because of topo, I don't agree. It looks like, from this topo, it's pretty flat. I mean,
it doesn't follow.
MR. O'CONNOR-I'm trying to parrot something. Also, we're down to a point where we've got 11 lots left.
With the project, it is a going project, and part of it is the momentum of the project and trying to
keep it going. We're in the midst of a selling season. We'd like to be able to come into it and
continue it, and not have it kind of fall flat because we lose some momentum, and we do anticipate
that we will be able to make some changes here that will comply with what you're concerned with. Are
they the same concerns for this area up in here? Are they as severe?
MR. YARMOWICH-There again, my comment to the Board is it's substandard. The Board has to decide if
they're going to waive any or all of it and base it on what can or can't be done. I feel that it's,
we looked at Scoon Lane tonight, or Scoon Creek Road, or whatever that was, and it was treated with
that kind of consideration. How you feel about this project is a little different. You have to make
up your own minds.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know what the radius was on that other one.
MR. YARMOWICH-Two fifty.
MR. O'CONNOR-Two fifty, and these are two fifty's here?
MR. YARMOWICH-I don't know.
MR. O'CONNOR-All I'm reading, now, is what's on the map.
MR. YARMOWICH-Well, the difference there is that was a single curve. The distinction I wanted to make
to the Board, that was.! curve, in a final phase of something that was different. Here we're looking
at a whole phase, and what you're suggesting is segmenting the phase, and I don't know how the Board's
reaction to that is.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's my suggestion. We put it back into the normal agenda flow and allow the project
to keep going, with very little negative impact.
MR. MARTIN-Well, it's been put before us. How does everybody feel about that.
MR. LAPOINT-I had no problem with all three of them, so I guess I have no problem with that one.
MR. BREWER-Is that road in? You said you've only got 11 lots left on that?
MR. O'CONNOR-There are only 11 lots left in Phase I.
MR. BREWER-I see what you're saying, in Phase I.
MR. CARTIER-Does taking that first loop out of play effect what you're going to be able to do with
those other two loops?
MR. O'CONNOR-I'm told no. Leon?
MR. STEVES-I know that I have a problem, if you will, if you redesign the subdivision, that I want
to take it and look at it myself, just as hard as you want to look at it. So, to answer your question,
I can't answer your question.
MR. LAPOINT-It will be limited as to what they can do in Phase III, when they get to those two, because,
I mean, they already know we don't like the way their configured now. So, I mean, if our concerns
are really about the second and third loop, then it should be no problem to go ahead with Phase II
as one loop.
56
--
-
MR. BREWER-Weren't all of our concerns on all three of them, because that road's not in yet, is it?
MR. MARTIN-The second and third one there have the real bad.
MR. LAPOINT-Have the tight ones.
MR. O'CONNOR-These have the real tight radiuses, here, and they have the tight return radiuses right
here.
MR. CARTIER-Yes. I guess my question is, are you limiting your options if we take that first loop
out of play?
MR. MARTIN-Can you still do something decent with the second and third ones if you?
MR. CARTIER-Does it reduce your options?
MRS. PULVER-That's a tough question until you go to the drawing board with your pencil.
MR. CARTIER-I understand that.
MR. MARTIN-He's only trying to cut him a break, here.
MRS. PULVER-And you've got to have 20,000 square foot lots.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I would offer this, and Al Farone is here. If we run into a road block, that we
can't come up with a workable project for these two loops, we will have to sacrifice what we have here,
or sacrifice in here. We will gamble on that. We will take the burden of the responsibility to not
come back and later complain of hardship. If the applicant understands that, that's what I'm asking
the Board to consider.
MR. MARTIN-How does everybody feel about that, then?
MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with that.
AL FARONE
MR. FARONE-My name is Al Farone. Until Leon gets in there and starts doing, and surveying, Leon didn't
survey this originally.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I know, he's in a tough spot.
MR. FARONE-That's right. So, we're going to try to do what the Board recommended, but is it feasible,
is it possible? We're saying, yes.
MR. MARTIN-Well, Jim and Corinne, how do you feel about that, as a compromise measure, so to speak?
MRS. TARANA-I guess my first reaction is, if you say that's okay, to be a noncompliance, is setting
a precedent that maybe we don't want to follow later, and it would be hard. There's no consistency,
then, in your dealing with this plan. That's my first thought, without even thinking about the, not
even getting into the building.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is a requirement, though, by your regulations, you can waive under certain
circumstances.
MRS. TARANA-Yes, I know that.
MR. O'CONNOR-And you did earlier, on another application.
MRS. TARANA-I know that.
MR. O'CONNOR-We're not talking about a Town wide precedent. We're talking about each one would stand
by their own.
MR. LAURICELLA-It's a compromise. I guess they'd have to look at the whole project, but it would stop
them, if we don't approve something.
MR. MARTIN-Well, as a compromise, again, you're putting yourself at risk. You might be limiting yourself
as to what you can do, and you won't know until you investigate it further. We can make a motion,
here, and see how it flies.
57
--
-
MR. LAPOINT-We don't need a motion, do we? I mean, they want to come back with a Phase II, and they're
trying to hear us out, as to whether or not that would be an acceptable thing to do.
MR. LAURICELLA-No. They want to start building on those lots.
MR. BREWER-No. They want us to consider part of that as Phase II.
MR. LAPOINT-Did we have a public hearing on this today? No, because that was all old business.
MR. MARTIN-No, it was left open.
MR. LAPOINT-So, if we did anything tonight, after the public's gone home, wouldn't that look really
bad?
MR. CARTIER-Right.
MRS. PULVER-Well, there wasn't any comment.
MR. O'CONNOR-There was no comment, either for or against.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but even so. I wouldn't feel comfortable with it.
MR. CARTIER-No, because now we're making a change without the public hear, and there might have been
somebody who might have commented on this proposal, okay.
MR. BREWER-We don't know that there is, but we don't know that there isn't.
MRS. YORK-Mr. Steves works very quickly.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Steves is going to work very quickly on this. Probably before we get to actually
marketing this, because we would have to construct the roads. The roads haven't been constructed at
al1. All this is going to do is let us start moving forward in that direction. The planning for the
second phase or the third phase is going to be completed before we have totally committed in here,
and we find that we, ourselves, have put ourselves in a position where we shouldn't be, we're going
to scrap it and do what we've got to do.
MR. CARTIER-But you're going to know that within a few days, anyway, aren't you? A week?
MR. STEVES-I don't know. If I'm redesigning it, I'm going to do my work.
MR. CARTIER-Then that's, as far as I'm concerned, that was the reason for going where we went with
this tonight, to give you a chance to redesign this thing, and give you as much lattitude as you possibly
can, okay. I think maybe your just kind of taking a straw vote, here.
MR. LAPOINT-Even though we're in the old one, can we just break out Preliminary, for part of this?
I mean, we're doing a combined Preliminary/Final, correct?
MRS. YORK-Yes, you can.
MR. LAPOINT-Can we just break out of Preliminary for one of these loops? I mean, does that gain you
anything?
MRS. YORK-Well, now you haven't had public comment on it. You've changed the plan, that's the issue.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you can have public comment at final, can't you?
MRS. YORK-No.
MR. BREWER-So, what good would Preliminary do you?
MR. LAPOINT-We're going in circles, right?
MR. STEVES-One of the problems that has arisen from because of this failure to give Preliminary approval
in the past, is that we had to notify everybody within the Phase I of the subdivision. That's not
a normal process.
MR. FARONE-The problem that we have, as developers, okay, is that we go ahead and do Phase I, okay,
and miss the whole thing from Sketch approval, and we're just ready to go to Phase II. All of a sudden
it comes to Phase II, and we find out the radiuses aren't what they should be. Why wasn't this done
five years ago?
58
'''"--
--
MR. MARTIN-Apparently, we looked into the notes, and there were a lot of problems with it, and for
whatever the reason, the Board at that time approved it.
MR. FARONE-Why do we have to pay the consequences? That's what's happening. In other words, what's
going on is the development is going to stop, and we have 11 lots left.
MRS. YORK-Mr. Farone, I think everybody here feels just the way I do about this, and that's that we
feel very bad about the situation your in, but we're in the same situation, unfortunately, and we can't,
two wrongs doesn't make it right.
MR. LAPOINT-We change the rules in the middle of the game, it seems to me, and that's not fair, because
it's really not our money on the line. It's someone else's.
MRS. PULVER-Well, we've also changed the players.
MR. LAPOINT-Right, and applicants come before these things, and, boy, there's one night right after
the other, and the rules have changed, and that's not fair.
MR. YARMOWICH-Well, the regulations are substantially identical, in terms of the radius on these roads.
What the Board before you decided to do, you guys have to decide something different.
MR. LAPOINT-Right, but it's still changing the rules.
MR. YARMOWICH-And what's at issue, here, is whether or not this Board is going to use the rules or
not.
MR. LAPOINT-Use different rules, different criteria.
MR. YARMOWICH-I guess I wanted to say that I advise you on the basis of what regulations were in effect.
There was no notes in the file for me to go by. No one said they checked the calculations. No one
said they checked the road radius. I'm advising you Board members that you have to take responsibility
for that. I'm not going to. There's safety issues. There's utility construction issues, and live
told you what it may mean to the Town. You have to reconcile that.
MR. MARTIN-And the other thing is, sound planning is sound planning, and to sit here and consciously,
just because you had a different rule last time, now you're going to just continue along, that's not
right either. I mean, what happens when the ambulance goes racing through that road some winter and
slides off the road.
MR. LAPOINT-You can't make everything fool proof, without a doubt. You just can't.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, but, Ed, that's why we're here. I know you can't, but you try and remove as many of
the problems as you can foresee, planning.
MR. LAPOINT-To the point where you stop it.
MR. O'CONNOR-I guess what I'm telling you, as part of the proposal, is that we do not intend, if you
have the Special Meeting or not, from what we can determine, to change that loop. I'm asking for
Preliminary to say whether or not that's going to meet with your approvals.
MR. BREWER-I don't know how we can put it on for May if there's no, this is almost like another
application. You're asking us to hear a different idea that you want to do and we have nobody here
to comment on it, if they wanted to.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's the same as we presented earlier.
MR. BREWER-No, it isn't the same. You asked us about the whole thing, before. Now, you're asking
us about part of it..
MR. O'CONNOR-Any time you have an application before you, you can approve all or part of it.
MR. CARTIER-Well, we're way past five minutes.
MR. O'CONNOR-I thought it would save a meeting, and would allow us to keep the momentum of the
development moving. I really don't see how he's going to change that particular loop. The other two
loops are possible.
MR. CARTIER-But he's already said he wants to look at it.
MR. STEVES-No. I said, if I'm going to design it, I'm going to look at it. That's what I said. If
you continue with one road, I don't have to look at that, any harder than you have to look at it.
If I'm going to redesign the rest of it, I'm going to look at it. That's what I said.
59
,.~ ~
"'----,
-"
MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm really bothered by the perception that might be out there, that you're talking
about, that we've disapproved a Preliminary, and then at the eleventh hour, when nobody's here, we
turn around and we change our motion. That bothers me. There may be nothing wrong with that, but
there are perceptions that we have to deal with. Are you looking for a straw vote?
MR. MARTIN-Yes, I guess at this point, that's what we need.
MR. CARTIER-I say, go for a Special Meeting, or a workshop.
MR. BREWER-That's fine.
MR. LAPOINT-I'd go again tonight.
MR. LAURICELLA-Special Meeting.
MRS. TARANA-Yes.
MRS. PULVER-I think we ought to go for the Special Meeting, too.
MRS. YORK-So you want, just to clarify, a Special Meeting on the 12th, not on the 12th, or some time
in the future?
MR. O'CONNOR-We'll try and meet the 12th.
MR. MARTIN-I appreciate your position, believe me I do. It's not like I'm sitting here, some cold,
hard bureaucrat, and just handing down this meeting.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Martin, Chairman
60